UNITED LABOUR FEDERATION Vs. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner Union Labour Federation in W.P. No. 7572 of 2003 has filed this Writ Appeal assailing the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2013.

(2.) The appellant had raised an Industrial Dispute on 24.10.2001 before the Labour Officer, Krishnagiri, against the Management of M/s. Padma Packages Private Limited., the second respondent herein, raising a new charter of demands in view of the fact that the settlement entered into between the Union and the Management had expired on 31.03.2001. They also raised another demand on 17.10.2001 before the Inspector of Factories, SIPCOT, Hosur complaining non employment and to revoke temporary illegal lock out. A similar demand had again been raised on 24.10.2001 before the very same authority complaining lay off and that the Management had not followed the mandatory requirements under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. They had raised a further demand on 14.05.2002 before the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Salem seeking wage revision and bonus and complaining lay off and lock out. A further representation had been given to the District Collector, Dharmapuri on 01.07.2002, again protesting lock out and complaining that the Management was engaging contract workers in the place of permanent workers. The first respondent, Government of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary Department of Labour and Welfare Employment had passed G.O.(D).No. 1 of 2005 on 23.12.2002 stating that the demands of the Union need not be referred for adjudication primarily on the ground that the Management had announced lock out and that the factory had been closed with effect from 10.01.2002 due to economic crisis. This Order of the first respondent had been questioned in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge by Order dated 29.04.2013 dismissed the Writ Petition with the following reason:-

(3.) Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the writ appellant was insistent in his arguments that the stand of the management that the Factory had been closed and that there was no manufacturing activity being carried out is false. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the appellant Union has sufficient proof to hold that the factory is still functioning and that the members of the Union have raised sufficient grounds in the industrial dispute which requires adjudication.