BALASUNDARAM P Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 8389 of 1995 has been filed by 18 employees of the second respondent-management. While the writ petition was pending, petitioners 15 and 16 expired. Hence, the legal representatives of the petitioners 15 and 16 were impleaded as respondents 19 to 24 in the writ petition.

(2.) Following are the few facts which have led to the filing of the above writ petition. The petitioners and some other workers joined as members in a new trade union by name Tamil Nadu Textile Workers Union affiliated to Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangh during September 1990. The second respondent management could not relish the same, threatened the workers and advised them not to continue as members of the said union. During September 1990, the second respondent management held negotiations with the rival unions without notice to the petitioners' union. Hence, by letter, dated September 13, 1990, the union requested the second respondent management to permit the members of the union also to participate in the negotiations. The members consisted 57 in number. Without conceding the said request, an agreement was entered into by the management with the other trade unions. The petitioners' union protested the said agreement in their letter, dated November 5, 1990. In the above background, the petitioners were issued with individual letters for their absence form duty on November 8, 1990 and were placed under suspension pending enquiry. Out of 57 workers suspended, 36 workers apologised and no action was taken against them. The remaining 21 workers were chargesheeted and 3 of them were taken back into service after they tendered apology leaving the 18 workers, viz., the petitioners, who did not apologise. All the petitioners were finally dismissed from service on May 13, 1991. Individual disputes were raised and the Labour Court ultimately found that the charges were proved, but invoked Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and modified the orders of punishment of dismissal to punishment of discharge with payment of Rs. 50,000 to each of the petitioners towards compensation. Aggrieved by that portion of the award in denying reinstatement and directing only the payment of compensation, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 83 89 of 1995 before this Court.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same award in respect of that portion of the order as to payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000 to each of the respondents, the petitioner-management has filed Writ Petition No. 10239 of 1995 before this Court.