WORKMEN OF SHOLINGUR TEXTILES LTD Vs. ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award of the first respondent namely Arbitrator (Commissioner of Labour, Madras), in Industrial Dispute No. A4/73555/86, dated January 31, 1988, the workmen of Sholingar Textiles, Ltd., represented by the North Arcot District Textile Workers Union, Sholingar Branch, have filed the above writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-union is briefly stated hereunder: The second respondent-mill have the spindlage capacity of 42620 spindles and they do not implement all the labour welfare legislations. The petitioner-union took up the issue of non-employment of certain employees by a letter dated April 22, 1985, to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and talks were held before him in the conciliation proceedings B4/5007/85. When majority of workmen were in the petitioner-union, the management entered into a settlement in November 1984 with the other unions increasing the workload without increase in wages. Again withdrew strike and in view of the attitude of the management, the first respondent recorded the failure of the conciliation proceedings and sent failure report, dated April 1986, to the Government regarding the non-employment issue and the parties were advised to hold talks on other issues before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour. After the failure report was sent, a settlement was signed on July 10, 1986 providing the first respondent as Arbitrator and the issue of non-employment of 146 workmen alone was referred for adjudication by the Arbitrator leaving aside other workmen. These 146 workmen included 41 permanent, 12 temporary, 51 apprentices and 42 Dina Coolies. The permanent and temporary workmen were issued with charge memos and dismissal orders were issued after conducting a force enquiry. The arbitration agreement was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated September 2, 1986 in G.O. Ms. No. 1714, Labour Department. The first respondent took the case on file in Industrial Dispute No. A4/73555/86. The petitioner- union filed a claim statement for 143 workmen out of 146 workmen. The second respondent- management filed a counter- statement after filing voluminous documents containing enquiry proceedings. The first respondent suggested that the matter should be settled through talks without resorting to adjudication proceedings. As the management agreed to the suggestion, the first respondent issued an order, dated June 25, 1987, reinstating 10 workers and the said order was made as an interim award. Again on January 18, 1988, the first respondent suggested that it would be better to have a settlement in the interest of both the parties. It is further stated that in spite of their best efforts there was no meeting point as the management was not willing to reinstate workmen and was suggesting monetary compensation. In these circumstances, the first respondent suggested to break the stalemate that he would come with a compromise formula agreeable to both parties and that he would call the parties after he fully prepared the compromise formula. The case was therefore adjourned without fixing a date of next hearing. While the petitioner-union was expecting a draft compromise formula based on which a settlement might be signed, after holding talks on the draft as the basis, to their shock and surprise, they received the impugned award, dated January 31, 1988 passed by the first respondent. The impugned award is illegal and the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In any event, the impugned award cannot be sustained since the first respondent has not assigned any reason in support of his conclusion.

(3.) The second respondent-management has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by petitioner-union. In view of the question to be decided, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to refer the entire case of the management as averred in the present counter-affidavit.