PONDICHERRY HINDUSTAN LEVEL THOZHILALAR SANGAM Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.R. Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates for respondent No. 3.

(2.) The petitioner is a Trade Union, representing the employees of Hindustan Lever Factory. The prayer in the writ petition is to consider the representation of the petitioner Union dated 13.02.2009 and 20.08.2013 and pass appropriate orders invoking the powers under Sec. 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to the "said Act"), to prohibit the lockout (suspension of production) of the third respondent factory.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the third respondent who is the multi -national company was paying very meagre wage to the petitioner Union members and hence on 07.03.2008, the petitioner Union raised a demand for higher wages and other allowances. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner Union submitted a charter of demand on 18.04.2008 and raised an Industrial Dispute. The Conciliation Officer, by notice dated 21.05.2008 called upon the petitioner Union and the Management to appear before them for hearing. The conciliation proceeding ended in failure and the failure report was submitted on 27.11.2008. On receipt of the failure report, the Government of Pondicherry has referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Pondicherry and the same is numbered as I.D.(T) No. 12 of 2008 on file of the Industrial Tribunal, Pondicherry. Further, the case of the petitioner Union is that when I.D. No. 812 of 2008 was pending before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), in order to suppress the said dispute, they decided to terminate the service of all the permanent employees and replace them by casual, contract workers and also offered voluntary retirement scheme which the members of the petitioner Union refused to accept the same. The petitioner Union said to have made several complaints to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and on the basis of the complaint, conciliation notices were issued to the petitioner Union as well as respondent No. 3. It is stated that when the dispute is pending, the Conciliation Officer suspended the production (lockout) so as to pressurize the petitioner Union members to opt for voluntary retirement scheme. Eventually, the said demand ended in failure and the Government of Pondicherry referred the matter and the same is pending in I.D. No. 3 of 2008. It is stated that pending these disputes, the petitioner made several representations and the second respondent issued a show cause notice on 09.04.2009 to the third respondent. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner Union now seeks for a direction to be issued to the second respondent to take action in accordance with law.