TTK GROUP EMPLOYEES UNION REP BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY R YOGANANDAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a trade union of workmen employed by the 2nd respondent management. In this Writ Petition, they have challenged an award passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.326 of 2002. By the impugned award, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner trade union and declined to grant any relief to 19 workers, whose retrenchment with effect from 10.3.2001 was the subject matter of the industrial dispute.

(2.) THE Writ Petition was admitted on 23.7.2007. On notice from this Court, the Registry summoned the original records for perusal by this Court and it has also been perused by this Court.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent management filed a counter statement dated 21.2.2003 refuting the stand of the petitioner union. It was contended by them due to acute competition from other countries like China, there was a loss in their export market and they wanted to stop production. For some time, they were getting orders from their sister concern for repairing the existing gadgets. THEn that work was also stopped. Having left with no other option, these 19 workers have been retrenched by the management. THEy were paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Due notice was sent to the Labour Department under Form -R along with the annexure. THErefore, there was no illegality in the retrenchment effected as against 19 workers with effect from 12.03.2001. THE contention of the workers that the factory work was carrying on in the godown at Rayakota Road, was baseless and they are not engaging any contract worker to carry on the same work. On the complaint made by the union, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories visited the said premises and found that no such activity was carrying on. It is unnecessary to close the business and therefore there was no question of surrendering their factory licence. As the present case is one of retrenchment, the legal requirement under Section 25-F has been complied with.