NEELIMARLA JUTE MILLS COMPANY LIMITED REP BY ITS P Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. R.H. Kumar, President of M/s. Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Limited, Calcutta, filed this writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to restrain outside leaders from participating in the negotiations meetings between the petitioner company and its workmen before the Labour Department and to restrain Sri P. Prasad from entering the petitioner factory or anywhere near the premises of the petitioner factory within the vicinity of 500 meters and pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner company is registered under the Company Act in the year 1939 and carries on the business of manufacturing jute goods at its jute mill situated at Nellimarla in the State. The mill is situated at a predominantly industrially backward area and engaging 6000 workers within the local area of Nellimarla and surrounding villages and the mills caters to the needy. The jute mill is providing employment either directly or indirectly to the surrounding population. It is further submitted that due to various factors, as such glut in jute industry, occasional shortage of raw material, acceleration in the price of raw jute, power cuts and labour unrest, etc. the petitioner company suffered heavy losses and the total capital of the company has been eroded. Therefore, the petitioner company became industrially sick within the meaning of Sec.3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act and on a reference under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi declared the petitioner company as a sick industrial company and it has taken every step for revival of the unit. The BIFR has nominated Special Director as per the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. It is submitted that the installed capacity of the petitioner company is 120 MT per day and if the unit has to become a viable unit and survive, as per the standard norms the production should not be less than 110 MT per day.

(3.) It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam, on 5-1-1996 held election to the office bearers of Nellimarla Jute Mill Karmika Sangham and declared the election results declaring Mr. P. Prasad (Kagada), 6th respondent herein, of IFTU elected with 2934 votes against S. Gangadhar Reddy who secured 2313 votes, that the term of the office bearers is for a period of two years from 5.1.1996 to 4.1.1998 and the next election was scheduled to be held on 5.1.1998 and though the term of office of the 6th respondent was over, neither fresh elections were held nor extension endorsement was obtained from the workmen for the extension of his term. It is further stated that there has been a memorandum of settlement entered between the Management and workmen under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act to step up production on par with the viable units of the industry on 3.1.1998. Accordingly, the unit has achieved the target of 106.76 MT per day production in the past but it never achieved the said production on par with the other viable units of the industry even after the settlement entered on 3.1.1998 and increase in payment of wages. IFTU agreed to take steps to increase productivity, modernisation, promote discipline and reduce absentism and combat practices on the part of the workmen which hampers production and disturbs industrial relations. But the workmen at the behest and provocation of 6th respondent have resorted to agitational methods like dharna, stoppage of work, go slow and lightening strike every time and by 27.12.1999 the sick unit was further crippled and the petitioner company has put up several notices calling upon the workmen to adhere to the settlement terms and to step up production and save the sinking unit in the larger interest of the industry and workmen, which went in vain. On the other hand, the petitioner company increased the salary of the workmen in terms condition 12(3) of the settlement dated 3.1.1998 with an expectation that the workmen would increase the productivity in terms of the above settlement. But due to the malafide actions of the 6th respondent, and at his instigation, the workmen resorted to conduct dharnas, stoppage of work, go slow tactics, lightening strike and therefore, brought the production to standstill and, therefore, the petitioner company was constrained to declare the suspension of uneconomic operation of the sick unit as a last resort with effect from 6.00 a.m. on 27.12.1999. But the 6th respondent, has forcibly and illegally took possession of the mill and ran it without there being any personnel of the Management and by such running of the mill, he has caused loss to the plant and machinery and finished products by producing substandard products without specifications. This fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Department through letter dated 25-7-2000 that the 6th respondent has no locus standie or authority to participate in the negotiations as he is not a workmen of the industry and that he has been threatening the Management at every meeting that he would not allow the mill to run without his leadership or his participating in the negotiations. The petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI Staff Association & Another Vs. SBI , wherein it was held that under section 3 and 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act an honorary/temporary member or a private individual is not entitled to represent the workmen in the matter of participation in the negotiations between the Management and the workmen. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the petitioner prays to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents 1 to 3 restraining the 6th respondent from participating in the negotiations between the petitioner company and its workmen before the Labour Department and to further restrain the 6th respondent from entering into the petitioner factory or anywhere near the petitioner factory premises within the vicinity of 500 meters.