K.SHIVA KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As many as 47 workmen laid this writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-Joint Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Ranga Reddy Zone and the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, in entertaining the disputes and disposing of the same in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I. D. Act') and also the retrenchment of the petitioners by the 4th respondent-M/s. United Spirits Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad, in contravention of Section 25N read with 25F of the I. D. Act, as illegal, and also for grant of consequential relief of direction to the 4th respondent to reinstate them into service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioners joined the service of the 4th respondent as casual labourers on 13.05.2004. On 20.04.2009 a settlement was arrived at between the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent-M/s United Spirits Company Employees Union. On the very next day i.e. 21.04.2009, the petitioners were not allowed to attend duty, thus, leading to the retrenchment of the petitioners. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners through Nacharam Industrial Area Mazdoor Sangh, before the 3rd respondent on 04.05.2009 questioning the retrenchment. A joint meeting was fixed on 15.05.2009 but the same was postponed to 10.06.2009 and from then onwards, it underwent several postponements. It was finally held on 29.01.2010. The 4th respondent claimed that it entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent, a recognized union, for the period of three years under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act, and that the agreement was effective from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011, albeit the agreement was signed on 20.04.2009.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners served for a period of more than 5 years and that their retrenchment is in violation of Section 25F and 25N of the I. D.Act. It is also contended that the settlement dated 20.04.2009 between the 4th and the 5th respondent is vague and is not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners consequently claimed that their retrenchment may be set aside and that they may be reinstated into service.