RAMANARAYAN MILLS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions have been filed by the management challenging the common award dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in l.D.Nos.455,457 and 458 of 2000. Therefore, all these writ petitions were taken up and heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.

(2.) THE 2nd petitioner in each writ petition was working in the winding department of the petitioner industry. On 24.12.1999, they were all transferred to spinning department. The workmen did not comply with the said order and instead the\raised industrial disputes through an unrecognized trade union. In the mean while, the management issued charge memorandum to them on 20.01.2010 alleging that they did not obey the orders of transfer. An enquiry was held mto the charges against the workmen in which the workmen were afforded sufficient opportunity On enquiry, the enquiry officer held that thy charges were proved. Based on the said report of the enquiry officer, the workmen were dismissed from service by independent orders dated 21.04.2000. Thereafter, they raised industrial disputes before the conciliation officer. The conciliation officer issued a notice of hearing to the workmen on 02.05.2000. The conciliation ultimately failed on 16.05.2000 Thereafter, challenging the termination orders, they raised industrial disputes in l.D.Nos.455, 457 and 458 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. During the pendency of she above industrial disputes, the workmen filed I.A.Nos.464 to 467 of 2003 raising preliminary issue stating that the dismissal was wrongful since no permission was obtained before such dismissal orders were issued as required under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act"]. The Labour Court allowed all the interlocutory applications and accordingly allowed the l.D.Nos. 455, 457 and 458 of 2000 thereby directing the management to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service and back wages. Challenging the same, the petitioner management is now before this court with the present writ petitions.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , in this case, the workmen were all dismissed from service on 21.04.2000. As on 21.04.2000. the conciliation proceeding was pending before the conciliation officer. The conciliation proceeding was pending from January 2000 onwards. Admittedly, before passing the orders of termination on 21.04.2000 no permission was obtained from the conciliation officer under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. Thus, according to the workmen, the orders of dismissal are wrongful and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. The labour accepted the said contention.