S RAMESH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions who were employed under the management of Lakshmi Mills Limited, have raised individual disputes against the management in respect of relieving them from their respective posts under section 2 (A) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and the Conciliation Officer in these cases, under the impugned orders has informed the petitioners that they do not come under the definition of workmen under section 2 (s) of the Industrial disputes Act,1947.

(2.) THE brief facts in each of the writ petitions are as follows: (a) The writ petitioner in W. P. No. 506 of 2006 had joined as a Grade-G worker in palladam Mill of the 4th respondent management in the year 1980 and thereafter, he was transferred to Singanallur and he was given Grades-F, E, D and C. It is his case that even though he was designated as Assistant Manager Technical, he was doing only clerical, manual and technical works and not doing managerial or supervisory work. (b) The writ petitioner in W. P. No. 507 of 2006 had joined as spinning Supervisor in the year 1996 and later he was promoted as Assistant spinning Master and thereafter, as Spinning Master and at last he was made as senior Officer in the Spinning Department at Singanallur Mill. Here also, he was doing only clerical, manual and technical works and not supervisory work. (c)The petitioner in W. P. No. 508 of 2006 had joined as a worker in the maintenance department in the year 1992 in Singanallur Mill and afterwards, he was designated as Deputy Officer/maintenance. He was doing clerical, manual and technical works. (d) The petitioner in W. P. No. 591 of 2006 had joined as Ticket boy in the year 1969 in the Singanallur Mill and later he was promoted as C-2 grade worker in the year 1990. (e) The writ petitioner in W. P. No. 592 of 2006 was appointed as a worker in the year 1990 and posted in Quality Control Department at Singanallur Mill and thereafter, he was designated as KP Operator QA, which is a clerical and workman cadre. (f) Likewise, the petitioner in W. P. No. 593 of 2006 was appointed as a salesman in the Showroom of the 4th respondent Mill at Cross Cut Road and later he was transferred to Singanallur Mill in K. P. Grade.

(3.) IT is stated that the 4th respondent management introduced an Early retirement Scheme (ERS) for both staff and workmen in the year 2002-03 and nearly 400 workmen were allowed to go on ERS. The petitioners have also requested the 4th respondent to allow them to go on ERS, however, the management requested them to continue in the respective posts. It is stated that in July and september, 2004 about 20 staff were transferred to other Mills out of whom 10 were juniors to the petitioners. The 4th respondent Mill is having Mills at singanallur, Pappanaickenpalayam, Palladam and Kovilpatti, apart from its registered Office at Coimbatore. It is stated that at the time of above said transfer, the 4th respondent informed the petitioners that they would be transferred to the Mill at Pappanaickenpalayam. However, contrary to the said assurance, by order dated 27. 9. 2004, all the petitioners were terminated from service with effect from 30. 9. 2004. 3 (a ). It is stated that when it was protested by the petitioners, the management gave an assurance that after termination orders were received, they would be employed in the Mill at pappanaickenpalayam. It was, based on the said assurance, the termination orders were received. Since the 4th respondent employer has not provided employment, the petitioners have individually raised industrial disputes under section 2 (A) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. It is stated that the second respondent, who is the Conciliation Officer, issued notice of conciliation, fixing the first meeting of conciliation on 3. 3. 2005. In the remarks filed by it, the 4th respondent has stated that it has offered to transfer the petitioners, which was not accepted by the petitioners. It is also stated that the termination orders were received by the petitioners without any protest. This was objected to by the petitioners by filing a rejoinder before the conciliation Officer stating that the petitioners have been always ready and willing to join in another place of transfer.