GEM GRANITES Vs. GOVERMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge G. O. (D)No. 975 dated November 29, 2000, in and by which, the first respondent State Government has referred two issues for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) THE issues referred for adjudication are: (i) Whether the transfer of the following eight workmen from the establishment of Gem granites at Injambakkam, Chennai to its branch situated at Karnataka State, the termination of 23 probationers on and from September 10, 1998 on the ground that they joined the trade union and also the termination of another set of 33 workmen who opposed the above said activities of the management would all amount to "unfair labour practice" as claimed by the union? names of the transferred eight workmen 1. T. Baskaran 2. R. Varadhan 3. M. Shankar 4. M. Selvaraj 5. T. V Shanmugham 6. K. Rajendran 7. V. K. Prakasam and 8. S. Jacob names of the terminated 23 probationers: 1. K. Natarajan 2. J. Pethuru 3. J. Masthanaiah 4. K. Kurugan 5. K. Arivazhagan 6. A. Chinnappa 7. K. Gengappa 8. R. Thangamani 9. S. Senthil Kumar 10. M. Kather Basha 11. N. Punniamurthy 12. R. Swamynathan 13. G. Govindaraj 14. K. Fanner 15. K. Manokaran 16. K. Palani 17. N. Selvamani 18. C. Elumalai 19. P. Venugopal 20. R. Ganesan 21. S. Jeeva 22. B. Kannan 23. K. V. Nagaran names of the terminated 33 workmen: 1. Logadurai 2. P. Muniappa 3. R. Chandran 4. M. Vedachalam 5. A. Sivakaminathan 6. A. Nathan 7. D. Karunakaran 8. S. Baskaran 9. S. Anbu 10. M. Venkataraman 11. S. Anbazhagan 12. D. Balakrishnan 13. C. H. Venkataramayya 14. A. Rajendran 15. N. Arjunan 16. E. Ramu 17. C. Nagaraju 18. V. Govindasamy 19. R. Manoharan 20. K. B. Venugopal 21. A. Baasha 22. P. K. Murugan 23. K. Anandan 24. V. Kuar 25. S. Murugan 26. A. Sundaram 27. V. Suresh Babu 28. I. Dennison 29. P. Vijayan 30. R. Mohan 31. A. Saleem 32. K. Venkatesan 33. M. Krishnamurthy (ii) Whether the temporary suspension and imposition of 8 days' wage cut to the 33 workmen of the management of Gem granites in its Injambakkam establishment and the subsequent based on an enquiry amounted to imposition of double punishment on them by the management and whether that would amount to "unfair labour practice"? If so, to what relief?

(3.) THE main plank of attack of the petitioner-management as against the above said impugned order of reference is that, as regards the justification of the transfer of 8 workmen, earlier there was a reference to the very same Industrial Tribunal in I. D. No. 100 of 1998, that in the said dispute, an award came to be passed by the Tribunal on May 26, 2000 holding that the transfer was justified; that while holding so, the Tribunal ruled that there was no allegation of victimisation pleaded at the instance of the union, that as regards the non-employment of 23 probationers and 33 permanent workmen, another dispute came to be referred before the very same Industrial tribunal in I. D. No. 818 of 1999 and in the circumstances, the present order of reference cannot be maintained as it would be hit by the well settled principle of the very issue already forming pan of the terms of reference in another existing dispute.