WORKMEN OF HANDLOOM PARTS FACTORY TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD Vs. HANDLOOM PARTS FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ, petition is for a mandamus for directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to ignore G. O. Rt. No. 1255 (Labour Department) dated May 16, 1972, and consider the dispute for being referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The first respondent factory is a Government undertaking. On October 31, 1969. thirty workmen were retrenched working in the foundry section. The workmen contended that in that retrenchment the principle 'last come, first go', as laid down in Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, had not been followed. Immediately after retrenchment, the workmen went on strike. The conciliation proceedings were started which ended in failure as seen from the report of the Conciliation Officer dated February 16, 1970. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Government requesting a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Government, by the impugned G. O. , held that there was no case for reference. It is under these circumstances the present writ petition has come to be preferred. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raises two points for my consideration: (1) The counter-affidavit of the Government clearly admits that they consulted the managing director of tansi to see whether any settlement was possible. In such a case, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity. In other words, the Government chose to consult the management. Equally the workmen also should have been consulted. (2) The Government, in passing the impugned order. has decided, the question of fact which would exclusively fall within the purview of the Industrial Tribunal as laid down in Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay (1964 8 FLR 236=1950-67 4 SCLJ 2291=1963 26 FJR 32 ).

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader, in reply to these contentions, submits that the consultation of the managing director was as stated in the counter-affidavit, only to find out whether any settlement was possible. In such a case. there was no question of giving any notice and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to complain about the violation of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, it is well open to the Government in failing to make a reference to decide such questions as are necessary for that purpose. In this case, it was found that the foundry section was a separate establishment and, therefore, Section 25-G had not been violated. The impugned order, therefore, is unexceptionable.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved, let me extract the order in full: