FIVE MEMBERS COMMITTEE Vs. PRESIDENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.212/2007, dtd. 8/8/2014 and to quash the same, the petitioner Association has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Five Members Committee of the Parrys Confectionary Thozhilargal, representing 59 workers, which raised I.D.No.212 of 2007 before the first respondent under Sec. 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner Association is that, 59 workers were working in the respondent's Management at Manapakkam from the year 1995 to the date of closure of the Company. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Association, the said Company was sold to the third respondent situated at Nellikuppam, which is a manufacturing Company and also a Unit of the second respondent. It is his further contention that the second respondent Management at Manapakkam, was closed with effect from 19/8/2002, without obtaining prior permission as required by Industrial Disputes Act, which is illegal and contrary to Sec. 25(N) and 25(O) of the Act and due to the said Act, the 59 workers who were working in the respondent's Management at Manapakkam have been denied the claims for reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Association is that even though both the units i.e. at Manapakkam and Nellikuppam, were functioning from two different places, the fund, market, product, administration and Corporate Office were common. He further submitted that the employees who are working in both the units must be taken under one roof. Insisting upon the same, several representations were made by the petitioner Association, requesting for their reinstatement with all benefits but the respondent Management did not consider the same. Therefore, the petitioner Association raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer which also ended in failure and then the same was referred to Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein the dispute was referred by the Government to the III Additional Labour Court for adjudication.