K SEENU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, 44 in number pray for certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the common order of the Labour court, Vellore in the various computation petitions of the year 1996 as enlisted in the writ petition, to quash the same and direct the Management to pay the amount to the petitioners as claimed by them.

(2.) THE 25th petitioner herein, who is the Secretary of United Foundry Employees Union contends that the their union was the only Union of second respondent-Management and that the majority of the workmen were in their union. The settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into on 10. 03. 1995 in terms of which, they had agreed to increase the production from 310 boxes to 375 boxes per shift and the management agreed to increase wages by Rs. 250/ -. According to them, as along as one Mr. Srinivasan, Personnel Officer was holding the post. There was good relationship between Management and the Workers and there was grant of many better service conditions for the workers. However, subsequently in his place, one Xavier Rajendran assumed Office and according to the petitioner the trouble started after he took over.

(3.) IN the affidavit, there are few allegations against the said Personnel Officer which are not relevant before the disposal of this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the attitude of the said Personnel Officer resulted in friction with the petitioner Union. The management also sponsored another Union which is allegedly a Puppet Union in the opinion of the petitioner. It is further contended that the Personnel Officer refused permanency to the workers belonging to the petitioner union. The petitioner has also stated certain other circumstances which are alleged to have created friction between the petitioner union and the Management and had resulted in certain disciplinary action being taken against the some of the workers belonging to the petitioner Union. Two workers belonging to the petitioner union were also dismissed on 28. 08. 1995 and the said order of dismissal is said to have been passed illegally and without any enquiry. 26 workmen who were aggrieved by the various orders of the management, had raised an Industrial dispute under Section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. During Conciliation, the management filed a counter stating that the said workmen were not dismissed, but were only placed under partial lock out. However, the petitioners contend that neither the union nor the workmen were informed about the alleged partial lock out.