MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. SUNDARAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 19.11.2018 in WP (MD) No. 14709 of 2010 whereby the Writ Petition filed by Respondents 1 to 12 herein was allowed, albeit by moulding the remedy. In the said Writ Petition, Respondents 1 to 12 herein challenged the order dated 17.12.2009 of the 13th Respondent herein in ID Nos.163 to 174 of 2007 dated 17.12.2009 whereby the said IDs were dismissed and for a consequential direction to reinstate the said Respondents in the Appellants' establishment with back wages and other benefits.

(2.) The facts that are relevant for the purposes of disposal of this Writ Appeal may be stated briefly herein. The second Appellant mill was promoted and managed by Mr. Somasundaram Chettiar. The said mill was closed on 8.10.1976 on account of heavy losses. In order to alleviate the problems faced by workmen in view of the said closure, the Government of India declared the first Appellant as the "authorised person" under the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 for purposes of taking over the second Appellant mill. Notwithstanding such takeover, it is stated that the losses continued to accumulate and, therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1986 whereby the mill was acquired and entrusted to the first Appellant with assumption of liability from the "appointed date" specified therein. However, the net worth of the second Appellant continually eroded. In these circumstances, the management filed an application dated 28.06.1994 seeking approval/ratification for laying-off about 218 workmen and the said request was rejected as was the review application in respect thereof. Eventually, the mill ceased to function from 18.7.1994.

(3.) Shortly after the mill ceased to function, the first Appellant was declared as a relief undertaking industry as per section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1969 by G. O. (2 D) No. 26 dated 28.9.1995. By the said notification, the provisions of Section 33-C and Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act) were made inapplicable to the first Appellant. The said notification was challenged by a trade union and an interim stay was granted by this Court; eventually, the Writ Petition was closed as infructuous in view of the one year sunset clause in the notification. Thereafter, it is stated that the State Government issued orders on an ongoing basis to exempt the first Appellant from Section 33-C and Chapter V-B of the ID Act for periods of one year from the date of the respective notification and the last notification that is produced is dated 24.02.2009.