MADURA SUGARS STAFF UNION Vs. MADURA SUGAR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Secretary of the Madura Sugars Staff Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1956. He has prayed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to pay 50% of the wages as layoff compensation under Section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act to seasonal workmen of the respondent for the period of layoff commencing from 29.11.2002.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the respondent is a Sugar Mill owned by the Tamil Nadu Government. When it was established in the year 1949, it was a private mill and subsequently taken over by the Government in 1983. The reason for the take over itself was that the private mill failed to pay the dues payable to the farmers who supplied sugarcane and non-payment of electricity charges and that the amount recovered from the farmers towards repayment of crop loan was not remitted to the banks. The petitioner further submits that at the time of take over, the mill had the crushing capacity of 800 tonnes per day and had employed 701 workmen, both regular and seasonal. After the take over, the crushing capacity was increased to 1250 tonnes. However, during 1995, the work force was reduced to 556 from 701, instead of increasing the work force, and subsequently, further reduced to 351. According to the petitioner, out of 351 workmen, 150 are regular and 201 are seasonal workmen. The seasonal workmen comprised of 37 clerks, 13 skilled, 128 unskilled and 23 semi-skilled workmen. During the crushing period, both regular and seasonal workmen are employed and they are paid wages and further, during non-crushing period, the seasonal workmen are paid retaining allowance, which is in the nature of subsistence allowance, as provided under the agreement between parties. The petitioner further submits that after the crushing period during the year 2001-2002 was over in April, the seasonal workmen were paid retaining allowance for the non-crushing period. They were not called for maintenance work, and in fact, no maintenance work was done during the non-crushing period. Crushing did not commence in October, 2002, for the crushing year 2002-2003. Instead, the respondent sought permission from the Tamil Nadu Government under Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act to layoff 310 workmen, namely, to layoff 109 regular workmen and 201 seasonal workmen. The application was opposed by the Unions. However, the Tamil Nadu Government, in G.O.No.1038, Labour and Employment dated 29.11.2002, granted permission for a period of six months from 29.11.2002 and hence, the petitioner proposed to challenge the order of the Government.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that after the layoff commenced, the regular workmen were paid 50% of the wages as layoff compensation, but the seasonal workmen are being paid only 50% of the retaining allowance for the layoff period. According to the petitioner, the seasonal workmen are also entitled to layoff compensation as payable to regular workmen, as provided under Section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, as they are also "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no reason for reducing the retaining allowance by 50%, since the non-crushing period continues for the seasonal workmen in view of the layoff declared for the crushing period and therefore, the layoff would not make any difference in the case of seasonal workmen.