R BHARATHIDASAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that is required to be answered by us in both these matters is 'whether the workmen could independently challenge the lockout orders passed against them by the Management, when the Union, representing the majority of the workmen, which has raised the dispute before the Labour Court, has decided to withdraw the dispute, in view of the subsequent developments between the Union and the Management?'

(2.) THE short facts, necessary for the disposal of these cases are that the M.R.F. Workers Union, the third respondent in W.A.No.1518 of 1999 has raised an Industrial Dispute pertaining to the individual lockout of 71 workmen under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Joint Commissioner of Labour and since the same has ended in failure and on receipt of the failure report, the Government has referred the dispute in G.O.Ms.No,77, dated 25.1.1994 and the said dispute was numbered as I.D.No.11 of 1994 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. During the pendency of this dispute, it seems, 58 workers and the Management entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. THE remaining 13 workmen concerned in the dispute, without changing the cause title of the reference, filed a claim statement signed by them before the Tribunal and the learned counsel who represent the Union continued to represent the 13 workmen also and filed the claim statement. In these circumstances, the above said Union, through its Secretary Mr.Vijayan, has filed Memo.No,4744 of 1995, dated 22.12.1995 to withdraw the I.D.No.11 of 1994 and filed another Memo.No.109 of 1996, stating that they have revoked the vakalat given to their advocates on record and engaged other Advocates. THE 13 workmen took strong objection to these two memos., by filing an objection stating that the lockout imposed upon these 13 persons is yet to be resolved and that the Union cannot withdraw the dispute. It has also been stated that Mr.Vijayan, who filed the memos., as the Secretary of the Union, is not competent to withdraw the dispute and he should act as per the decision of the Central Body/Executive Committee of the Union and he cannot unilaterally take any decision. And that there is no meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union or the General Body of workmen resolving to withdraw the dispute as not pressed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No,975 of 1997, dated 3.6.1999, the individual workers, numbering 12 have come forward to prefer W.A.No.1518 of 1999 and the Management, aggrieved against the order dated 27.7.1999 passed in W.P.No.19367 of 1996, has come forward to prefer W.A.No,2066 of 2003.