VISALAKSHI MILLS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the preliminary award of the Labour Court, Madurai. The Government by their order dated 15 June 1959 referred to that Court for adjudication the question whether Sankaran working as a doffer in Visalakshi Mills, Ltd. , should be appointed as a spinnner. His case was that he Joined the service of the mills in May 1955 as a ringframe spinner, that he was transferred on 1 September 1955 to work as a doffer on the assurance that as and when a vacancy arose in the spinning section, he would again be given the first chance of working as a spinner, that contrary to the aasurance they failed to appoint him as a spinner when occasions arose. According to Sankaran the management bypassed him with a view to victimize him for his trade union activities. He, therefore, raised a dispute in May 1958, which the labour officer having failed to conciliate, it was finally referred to adjudication.

(2.) ONE of the grounds on which the management resisted the reference was that the dispute was only an individual dispute. This contention was based on the fact that on the date of the reference it was not shown that the dispute had the backing of a substantial or a considerable section of the workmen of the Visalakshi Mills, Ltd. This question was tried by the labour Court as a preliminary issue. It found that on the date of reference, namely, 15 June 1959, there were 442 workmen in the mills out of whom 102 were members of the Madurai Textile Workers' Union. On this basis the labonr court considered that this represented nearly 25 per cent of the total workmen employed in the mills and this could be considered to be a substantial or considerable section of the Workmen in order to clothe the dispute with the status of an industrial dispute. The labour court further found that in any case taking the ringframe section by itself, there were at the time of the reference 96 workmen of whom 51 were members of that union be that a majority of the workmen in the ringframe section were behind the dispute. On that view, the labour court overruled the preliminary objection and held that the dispute was an Industrial dispute.

(3.) ON the part of the management, which is the petitioner in this Court, it is contended by Sri M. K. Nambiar, that in the approach the labour Court made to the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction in the above manner, it misdirected itself inasmuch as it was not merely a question of the number of workmen of the mills being members of the Madurai Textile Workers' Union. But the labour court totally failed to address itself to the question whether even the 102 workmen who were hald to have been members of that union had collectively met and resolved to back up the dispute. In the absence of at least 51 out of 96 workmen working in the ringframe section shown to be supporting Sankaran in his demand, the dispute remained to be an individual dispute. It is further urged that the workmen of the mills have their own union called the Visalakshi Mills Workers' Union, in which a large body of the workmen of the mills were members, but this union was neither approached for the purpose, nor backed up the demand. On these considerations, It is contended that the award is vitiated.