BHARATHA NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS BY ITS GENERALSECRETARY A. MURUGESAN Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF KRISHNAVENI TEXTILES MILLS, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is a classic example of the total misuse by the trade union of the legal process of this court. Following facts will highlight the controversy.

(2.) There was a settlement entered into between few unions and the management hereunder under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under that settlement the wards of the retired employees or such employees who had obtained retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme were agreed to be employed by the management subject to their educational qualifications. The present writ petitioner union gave certain names for being employed. One such name was one Pankajam, a lady. It is an admitted matter that under the settlement under Sec. 12(3) the persons who could be employed should be having certain educational qualifications. It was claimed by Pankajam on the basis of a photostat copy of certificate that she had passed VIII standard from a certain school. The respondent management therefore enquired into the correctness or otherwise of the certificate. In response, the respondent got an information that the person who allegedly signed the certificate was the Headmaster, further the registration number belonged not to a lady but to a boy, which both confirmed the fact that the certificate produced by Tmt. Pankajam was a false certificate. The management therefore, informed the union this fact in the year 1991. The union waited for good long five years on the ground that the settlement was challenged by some other union in some other writ petition and came to this court for the first time in the year 1996 claiming an employment in favour of the same Pankajam. The matter pended thereafter till today. Even when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner gave a rejoinder to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent, again insisting on the nomination of the same Pankajam, who had given a false certificate and the falsity of which certificate was well informed by the management to the union way back in the year 1991. Besides giving uncalled for comments on the question of women employment policy, again the union is insisting upon Pankajam and has then made a "magnanimous" offer now after ten years that if Pankajam is not acceptable to the respondents, then it should have an option to nominate some "young male person".

(3.) All this is extremely distressing. This is nothing but a blatant misuse of the legal process. In fact the writ petition should have been dismissed in limini on the ground of laches alone. There are no bonafides on the part of the union in this case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.