T SELVAN Vs. LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners were workers employed by the 2nd respondent Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Limited, Unit II at Periyanaickenpalayam. The Writ Petitioners have challenged a common award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 349, 438, 459, 412, 364, 441, 445, 443, 469, 429, 414, 458, 446, 386, 409, 378 and 377 of 1999 dated 6.10.2003. Though the Common Award referred to non-employment of 126 workers, only 79 petitioners are before this Court. The first batch of Writ Petitions were admitted on 30.4.2004. Subsequently, in 2007 one V.Palanisamy and 61 other workers have filed W.P. No. 25700 of 2007. When that Writ Petition came up for hearing, this Court having found the earlier batch of Writ Petitions and are still pending, directed all the connected Writ Petitions to be posted before this Court to be heard along with that Writ Petition. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions were grouped together and a common order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to workmen or the management as the case may be.

(2.) The circumstances that led to raising of the dispute are as follows: Admittedly the management employed over 300 workers as Apprentices to the 2nd respondent in the Textile Industry. The management became the sick industry and the matter was referred to BIFR for framing the rehabilitation scheme. According to the management, no production took place from February 1998, as revealed from the letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dated 8.9.1998 marked as Ex. M.8 before the Labour Court. The content of the management before the Conciliation Officer was that due to suspension of operation of the machineries, apprentice trainees were also affected. Even the permanent employees were given no work on the principle of 'no work no pay'. It was subsequent to the normalization of the situation, when the Mill was opened, the apprentice trainees never reported for training.

(3.) It transpires that an industrial dispute was raised by the trade Union under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act representing 233 apprentices. According to the management, 80 of those apprentices have come back for training and even though there was work, they underwent training. But, in respect of the 126 workers covered by the impugned award, their stand was that subsequent to the suspension of operation, they never reported for work and the question of terminating their service does not arise, as they themselves have stopped from work.