LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-128

MADRAS STAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On November 28, 2003
MADRAS STAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Madras Star Hotel Employees Union against the order of the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated 14.5.1999 in C.P.No.1050 of 1990.

(2.) The Union has taken up the cause of some former workmen working under the respondent No.2. It is alleged in the writ petition that on 1.9.1990, the Management had prevented 105 workmen from reporting for duty under the guise of retrenching all of them by a notice of retrenchment dated 31.8.1990 without any prior notice and without seeking any permission as per Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). Subsequently, the second respondent filed an application in Form R2 on 3.9.1990 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour seeking permission under Section 25N of the Act to retrench the workmen. The petitioner Union filed objection on 13.9.1990 and the matter was heard by the Joint Commissioner of Labour and at that stage the management of the second respondent unilaterally withdrew the application filed in Form R2. The petitioner had written a letter dated 17.9.90 to the Joint Commissioner seeking permission to prosecute the second respondent for the violation of Section 25-N of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.16873 of 1990 and 16898 of 1990 in the High Court challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour permitting withdrawal of the application in Form R2. The writ petitions were dismissed and ultimately, writ appeals were filed by the petitioner. While disposing all the writ appeals, the Division Bench observed: . . . the effect of withdrawal of application earlier filed by the Management would undoubtedly be that there was no application by management seeking permission. It is for the workmen to settle their remedies available to them if any in an appropriate forum. Thereafter the workmen filed C.P.No.1050 of 1990 before the first respondent Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming salary for the month of September 1990, on the allegation that the management had illegally retrenched the workmen without prior permission as contemplated under Section 25-N of the Act. The said application has been rejected under the impugned order by the Labour Court on the finding that the second respondent was not an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 25-L of the Act and as such, such provision was not applicable. This has been challenged not by the workmen, who were applicants before the Labour Court, but by the Madras Star Hotel Employees Union.

(3.) Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was inserted by the Act 32/76 with effect from 5.3.1976. Section 25K relates to application of Chapter V-B Section 25K(1) provides that the provisions of Chapter V-B shall apply to an industrial establishment, not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently, in which not less than one hundred workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months. The relevant portion of Section 25-L is extracted hereunder :-