WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN WADVA BROS ENGINEERS MADRAS Vs. WADVA BROS ENGINEERS AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KUPPAM MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed by the workmen, who succeeded before the Labour Court but lost before the learned single Judge, challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.11.1990 in W.P.No.3266 of 1987. THE writ petitioner before this Court is the Management and the writ petition came to be filed for a writ of certiorari is call for and quash the award of the II Additional Labour Court, Madras, dated 2.12.1986 in I.D.No.16 of 1985.

(2.) THE dispute came to be entertained as noticed above on a reference made by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1 Labour dated 3.1.1985 as to the question whether the stoppage of work in Wadva Bros. Engineers from 1.1.1984 is a case of lock out or closure and as to what relief the workmen would be entitled to? THE averments before the Labour Court were that the workmen were all working in the respondent Management company that the workmen in the Company had never been kept on the rolls of the Company for more than few years, they were all members of the INTUC Union, that they raised a charter of demands on 15.11.1983 and during the pendency of negotiations, the Management issued a closure notice and the closure was not genuine but merely an attempt to break the Union. It was also their case since the INTUC Union was not espousing the cause of the workers, the workers jointed the socialist workers" Union to prosecute their case and this Union espoused the cause contending that the alleged closure of the respondent's machine shop was only a lock out. THE Management was said to have agreed that it was running the concern by leasing out to one Sekar and Munuswamy and the claim of the Management that the workers had settled their dues was incorrect and that the workmen, who have not settled their dues according to the workmen before the Labour Court are entitled to the relief of reinstatement with attendant benefits.

(3.) MR.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-workmen strenuously argued that the learned single Judge was in error in recording the findings differing from the one recorded by the Labour Court on every one of the three issues noticed supra and that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, it was not given to learned single Judge to re-appreciate the evidence as if on an appeal and consequently, the findings recorded by learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. It was also contended that learned single Judge ought not to have relied on the receipts produced by the Government Pleader from the files of the Conciliation Officer and that such production and acceptance at this stage of the proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India resulted in denial of an effective opportunity to the workmen to substantiate their claim that those materials are not legally" acceptable. Learned counsel also took great plans to substantiate the grievance of the workmen that the learned single Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that there was no proper espousal of the dispute on behalf of the workmen by the required number of workmen and that we should agree with the finding recorded by the Labour Court than that of the learned single Judge for the reason that five workmen whom the learned single Judge has held to be not workmen of the Management are really workmen of the respondent-Management and therefore, the Labour Court was right in including them also as the workmen of the concern.