K.PARTHASARATHY SPINNING MILLS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the impugned award dated 23.06.2008 passed in I.D.No.17/2004 by the first respondent/Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management would submit that when the industrial dispute raised by the respondents 2 and 3, praying to hold that the denial of work from 05.04.2003 to 07.06.2003 and from 13.07.2003 by the management is illegal and consequential direction to the management to grant work, wages and all other monetary benefits besides payment of bonus at the rate of 35% for the year 2001-2002.

(3.) The first respondent/the learned Industrial Tribunal, in its award dated 23.06.2008, while dismissing the dispute as against the second respondent Union, wrongly allowed the claim made by the third respondent union. When the impugned award passed by the first respondent clearly holds in favour of one union that the action of the management in not operating the mill, is unjustified and it is not fair on the part of the first respondent/Industrial Tribunal to give contra findings in respect of another union/ 3rd respondent holding that they are not entitled for wages and all other attendant benefits. Adding further, it is stated that when the second and third respondent unions have jointly raised the said dispute for grant of full wages to the workmen for the period during which the management mill was not operating and demanded bonus for the year 2001-2002 and it is contended that the action of the petitioner management in closing the unit under the pretext of financial crisis is unjustified because the management was unable to pay the electricity charges in view of its inability and the financial crisis along with various dues payable by them. Due to non-payment of electricity consumption charges, the electricity department has disconnected the service connection. Consequently, the petitioner management was under compulsion to close down the Mill from operation. This was also accepted by the learned Industrial Tribunal on perusing all the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner management namely the oral evidence and also a settlement reached between the parties vide Ex.W23. The contention of the petitioner management is that they were forced to stop their mill because of their inability and financial crisis to pay the electricity charges was accepted. The non-employment of the workers from 13.07.2003 was also to be accepted as a bonafide and justifide one. This was also considered by the Assistant Labor Officer and when the non-employment of the workers from 13.07.2003 has to be decided by both the parties by way of negotiations and the Assistant Labour Officer has given his advisory note that non-employment of the workers from 13.07.2003 is decided by way of negotiations and neither of the unions had come forward for any negotiations subsequent to the agreement. Therefore, it goes to show that the workers have given up their rights in this regard as per Ex.M28. When the second and third respondent unions have not come forward and asked for any negotiations, they have given up their rights and this has been completely over looked and this apart, while considering the second claim made by the third respondent union, for payment of minimum wages for the year 2001-2003, the learned Industrial Tribunal recorded the findings for the period 2001-2002. The minimum bonus has been disbursed and paid to the workers and they have received that amounts also. More over, the petitioner management was able to establish their case that the mill has not gained any profit to pay their workers other than the minimum bonus. But this aspect was also completely over looked by the Tribunal. Admittedly, from the year 2000 onwards, the petitioner mill was not functioning properly for the various reasons namely due to inability and financial crisis to pay electricity charges and later it was closed down. It was also a matter of fact that stopping of production from 13.07.2003 was also established that the said period of closure was due to the disconnection of electricity supply for non payment of electricity charges by the petitioner management. The learned Industrial Tribunal ought to have dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the second and third respondents. But without considering the practical issues raised between the parties, the Tribunal has wrongly passed the impugned award. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.