MANAGEMENT OF PUDUKOTTAH TEXTILE LIMITED Vs. A GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 60 writ petitions have been filed against a common order dated 23. 6. 1975 made by the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in C. P. Nos. 253 of 1974, etc. , The petitioner is the management of Pudukottah Textiles Ltd. , Namanasamudram, Pudukottah District. 61 claim petitions were filed before the first respondent under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. , (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), claiming payment of wages for the period 1. 4. 1970 to 12. 11. 1971, nearly seventeen months, during which period the Mill was kept closed. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions, it is claimed by the workmen that till 1970, the mill was under the management of one L. Narayanan Chettiar, who was designated as Director, and who had taken over the management in or about 1959. Due to continued financial difficulties, the management which was in charge of its affairs in 1970, issued notice dated 28. 3. 70 under Ext. M10, informing its workers that the mill will be closed for 30. 3. 1970 and that they need not come for work thereafter, except such of those workmen who have been individually informed to carry on work. On 30. 3. 1970, the mill was closed. The workmen were represented by more than one union and during the period when the mill was closed, it appears that the workmen had approached the Handloom Board to take over the mill by submitting individual representations. Workmen have stated in their individual memorials dated 12. 3. 1971 that if the Handloom Board is to take over the affairs of the mill, they will not claim any compensation during the period when they are out of employment. Subsequently, since the Handloom Board was not inclined to take over the management of the mill, talks were held between the representatives of Trichy District Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, and Pudukottah Textiles National Workers Union with the new management and an agreement under Section 18 (1) of the Act was entered into on 30. 10. 1971 under Ext. M2. , stating therein that since Tamil Nadu Handloom Board is not willing to take over the mill, representatives of the union, agreed to the new management taking over the mill so that the workmen who have been without employment, may get back jobs. Clause " (sic)" of the agreement is to the effect that from the date of closure, till the date of reopening, the workmen will not be entitled to any compensation or wages. After securing such an undertaking, the new management reopened the mill on 12. 9. 1971. Individual letters of undertaking to this effect had also been secured. It is at this stage, the Trichy District Textiles Workers' Union raised an industrial dispute against the management, claiming that during the period 30. 3. 1970 to 15. 11. 1971, there was a lock-out in the mill and, therefore, the workers are entitled to compensation. But after the filing of the conciliation report by the Labour Officer, Pudukottah, by G. O. Rt. No. 1978, Labour Employment and Housing Department, dated 17. 10. 1974, under Ext. M7, Government rejected the demand and refused reference, In the meanwhile these sixty-one workmen have filed petitions under Section 33c (2) of the Act claiming that they have been unjustly kept away during the period in question, and that they are entitled to be paid wages in full for the period of closure of the mill. The management filed a counter-affidavit on 26. 7. 74 and thereafter filed an additional counter-affidavit on 16. 6. 1975 stating among other things, that the question as to whether the closure is legal or illegal cannot be agitated in a petition under Section 33c (2) of the Act, and that the workmen were unsuccessful in getting a reference made under Section 10 of the Act, in the present proceedings, and hence this aspect cannot be considered. Therefore, it was claimed in the affidavit that the petitions filed by the workmen are not maintainable before the first respondent, who had erroneously held that the workmen will be entitled to the claim of lay-off compensation without understanding the nature of the claim that have been made by the workmen.

(2.) BEING aggrieved with order made by the first respondent, the management has preferred these writ petitions.

(3.) THE points taken in these writ petitions are: