KOVILPATTI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are being interconnected, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The case of the petitioner Society is that the petitioner Society is a co-operative Society and the main object of the Society is to procure agricultural products from farmers and auction them for better price to the farmers in order to avoid middlemen. Apart from the above function, they are also purchasing cotton from agriculturists and gin the cotton and sell the cotton through auction for better price to the agriculturists. Apart from this , they are also distributing essential commodities to the fair price shops situated within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner Society would further aver that due to continuous drought in the State for a period of four years between 2001 to 2004, the agriculturists could not cultivate and consequently, the business of the petitioner Society was reduced to a great extent. There are 41 employees working in the petitioner's Society. On the above said situation, it has become necessary to reduce surplus employees and in order to reduce establishment and contingency expenses being incurred by the petitioner Society, 6 of the employees were retrenched from their services. Due to excess establishment and contingency expenses, loss was increased year by year.

(3.) The second respondent workman and 5 others were junior most and they were covered under retrenchment by the order dated 21.01.2002. They were retrenched from their services and the requisite procedure as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was followed. However, aggrieved over the same, the second respondent workman and others filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was stayed by this Court and in view of the same, the second respondent workman and others continued to work in their respective capacity. However, the Principle Seat of this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions in the case of Justin and others, more specifically dismissed the writ petition in W.A.No.663 of 2002, dated 19.03.2008, filed by the second respondent workman and in view of the said fact, the petitioner and others are not entitled to continue into their services.