IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16 / 09 / 2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.6382 OF 2011
AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011
The Management of Hydro Chains P. Ltd.
Rep. by its Director S.A.J. Kamal Batcha
Sipcot, Ranipet 3.
Vellore District. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Principal Labour Court
Vellore, Vellore District.
2.P.Parvatham
3.A.Arumugam
4.S.Malathi
5.S.Amaravathi
6.M.Pitchandi
7.K.Krishnaveni
8.P.Kuppammal
9.M.Kuppuswamy
10.S.Bhaskaran
11.G.Kathavarayan
12.M.Jayavelu
13.K.Munuswamy
14.P.Dayalan
15.P.Mani
16.S.Joseph
17.N.Gunasekaran
18.V.Mathiazhagan
19.L.Balu
20.R.Karuppiah
21.V.Desingh
22.P.Jayapal
23.P.Ravi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in I.A.Nos.191 of 2009 to 212 of 2009 in I.D.Nos.167, 168, 169, 171, 173 to 176 of 1998 and 291/2000 to 304/2000 on the file of the first respondent dated 03.08.2010 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy
O R D E R
The petitioner is an Industry and the respondents 2 to 23 are its workmen. The workmen became the Members of Bharatiya Mazdoor Union. According to the workmen, this resulted in the petitioner resorting to laying off workmen. Thereafter, the respondent workmen were retrenched from service from 01.08.1997.
2.The workmen took up their non-employment before the first respondent Labour Court, after the conciliatory efforts failed. According to the workmen, the action of the petitioner Management was not bonafide and that they were victimised for joining the trade union. It was further alleged that the retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3.The workmen took up the industrial dispute relating to their non-employment in I.D.Nos.167, 168, 169, 171, 173, 174, 175 and 176 of 1998 and 291 to 304 of 2000 before the first respondent Labour Court. The petitioner Management filed counter statement refuting the allegations. According to the petitioner Management, the workmen were retrenched from service in accordance with law. Further, it was averred that the petitioner Management resorted to lay off and retrenchment due to financial crisis.
4.On the side of the workmen, one witness was examined on 23.06.2003 and 8 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W8. The matter was posted for cross examination on 01.07.2003, 15.07.2003, 24.07.2003, 18.08.2003 and 25.08.2003. On 25.08.2003, the counsel for the petitioner Management reported no instruction and hence, the petitioner Management was set exparte. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 01.09.2003, 17.09.2003 and 20.10.2003.
5.The first respondent Labour Court passed an exparte award, based on merits, on 20.10.2003. The first respondent Labour Court ordered reinstatement, continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. The award attained finality as the same was not put to challenge.
6.While so, the respondent workmen filed claim petitions in C.P.Nos.529 and 530 of 2004 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming benefits as per the award of the Labour Court, referred to above. In those proceedings also, the petitioner Management remained exparte. The first respondent Labour Court passed an order dated 18.02.2006 in C.P.No.529 of 2004 computing the amount due to 14 workmen. In C.P.No.530 of 2004, the first respondent Labour Court passed an order dated 21.12.2006 computing the amount due to 8 workmen.
7.Thereafter, in the year 2007, the petitioner Management filed interim applications to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte order passed in the claim petitions. However, those interim applications were dismissed for default on 06.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner Management filed applications to restore those interim applications. However, the first respondent Labour Court rejected those applications by order dated 18.03.2010.
8.In the meantime, the workmen approached the Government under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to recover the amount due from the petitioner Management as per the order of the first respondent Labour Court in the claim petitions.
9.Based on the applications under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.111, Labour and Employment Department, dated 24.02.2009 issuing certificate to recover the amount due to the 14 workmen from the petitioner Management, pursuant to the order of the Labour Court dated 18.02.2006 passed in C.P.No.529 of 2004.
9.1.Likewise, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.112, Labour and Employment Department, dated 24.02.2009 issuing certificate to recover the amount due to the 8 workmen from the petitioner management pursuant to the order of the Labour Court dated 21.12.2006 in C.P.No.530 of 2004.
10.The petitioner Management filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6196 and 6203 of 2009 to quash the aforesaid G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. This Court dismissed those writ petitions on 29.04.2009.
11.Thereafter, the petitioner Management filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.14005 and 14010 of 2009 seeking for a direction to the Government to reconsider their orders issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. This Court passed an order dated 23.07.2009 directing the Government to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner Management seeking reconsideration of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. The Government passed orders on 09.11.2009 rejecting the representations seeking reconsideration of G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. The petitioner Management filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.160 and 161 of 2010 challenging the Government letter dated 09.11.2009 and the same were dismissed on 07.01.2010.
12.The petitioner Management filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8466 and 8467 of 2010 seeking to quash the order dated 18.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.506 of 2008 in I.A.No.310 of 2007 in C.P.No.529 of 2004 and I.A.No.507 of 2008 in I.A.No.312 of 2007 in C.P.No.530 of 2004 respectively. Those writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2010.
13.In the meantime, the petitioner Management also filed applications in I.A.Nos.191 to 212 of 2009 in I.D.Nos.167, 168, 169, 171, 173 to 176 of 1998 and 291 to 304 of 2000 seeking to condone the delay of 2008 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte award dated 20.10.2003 passed by the first respondent Labour Court.
14.The respondent workmen resisted those applications. According to the respondent workmen, the petitioner Management was aware of the exparte award when they filed interim applications in the year 2007 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte orders dated 18.02.2006 and 21.12.2006 respectively passed in C.P.Nos.529 and 530 of 2004 respectively. According to the respondent workmen, the exparte award became final and based on the orders passed in the claim petitions, Government has issued G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112 for recovering the amount due from the petitioner Management.
14.1.According to the respondent workmen, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner Management seeking to quash G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112 were dismissed. Their attempt in seeking reconsideration of G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112 was failed. Their writ petitions seeking to set aside the order dated 18.03.2010 rejecting the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the order passed in the claim petitions were also dismissed. In these circumstances, in order to protract the litigation and to avoid payment to the workmen, they filed the applications seeking to condone the delay in filing their application to set aside the exparte award. No reason was given by the petitioner Management for the delay of 2008 days.
15.On behalf of the petitioner Management, one witness was examined and no document was marked. On behalf of the respondent workmen, two witnesses were examined and 9 documents were filed and marked as exhibits R1 to R9. The Labour Court ultimately passed an order dated 03.08.2010 in I.A.Nos.191 to 212 of 2009 in I.D.Nos.167, 168, 169, 171, 173 to 176 of 1998 and 291 to 304 of 2000 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner Management. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
16.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
17.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent Labour Court was not correct in passing the impugned award rejecting the application of the petitioner Management seeking to condone the delay of 2008 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the exparte order passed in C.P.Nos.529 and 530 of 2004. It is submitted that the petitioner Management faced severe financial crisis and therefore, they were not able to file the application to set aside the exparte award in time. However, the same was not duly considered by the first respondent Labour Court.
18.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
19.The respondent workmen took up their non-employment before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.Nos.167, 168, 169, 171, 173 to 176 of 1998 and 291 to 304 of 2000. The petitioner Management filed counter statement. One witness was examined on the side of the respondent workmen on 23.06.2003 and the same was posted for cross examination on 01.07.2003, 15.07.2003, 24.07.2003, 18.08.2003 and 25.08.2003. However, the petitioner Management did not choose to cross examine the witness. On 25.08.2003, the counsel for the petitioner Management reported no instructions and hence, the petitioner Management was set exparte. Thereafter, the first respondent Labour Court passed the exparte award dated 20.10.2003. On the side of the respondent workmen, 8 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W.1 to W.8. Though it was an exparte award, the same was on merits and also on the pleadings of the parties and the deposition of the witness. The first respondent Labour Court directed the petitioner Management to reinstate the respondent workmen with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits.
20.Based on the award of the first respondent Labour Court, the respondent workmen filed claim petitions under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in C.P.Nos.529 and 530 of 2004 claiming wages and other benefits as per the award. However, the petitioner Management remained exparte in the claim petition proceedings. Hence, the first respondent Labour Court passed the order dated 18.02.2006 in C.P.No.529 of 2004 computing the amount due in respect of 14 workmen and also passed the order dated 21.12.2006 in C.P.No.530 of 2004 computing the amount due in respect of 8 workmen.
21.In January 2007, the petitioner Management has filed the application to condone the delay in filing the application seeking to set aside the exparte orders passed in C.P.Nos.529 and 530 of 2004 and the same is admitted by the witness examined on the side of the petitioner Management before the Labour Court and the same is taken note of by the first respondent Labour Court in the impugned order. Further, in para 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner Management in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner Management has stated that they received notices from the Labour Court in C.P.Nos.529 and 530 of 2004 and they handed over the papers to their counsel. Besides the reason given by the Labour Court that the petitioner Management was aware in 2007 itself, the petitioner Management was aware of the claim petitions filed even in 2004 itself as per para 5 of their affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition. The claim petitions were based on the exparte award dated 20.10.2003.
22.Furthermore, the petitioner Management filed counter statement in the industrial disputes before the Labour Court and on the side of the respondent workmen, one witness was examined on 23.06.2003 and the same was posted for cross examination on 01.07.2003, 15.07.2003, 24.07.2003, 18.08.2003 and 25.08.2003 and on 25.08.2003, the counsel for the petitioner Management reported no instructions. It is held by the Labour Court that had the petitioner Management taken interest in the matter, they could have taken follow up action and found out the stage of the industrial dispute, but the petitioner Management failed to do so. In my view, I do not find any infirmity in such a finding of the Labour Court.
23.Furthermore, the petitioner Management is now facing recovery proceedings and the petitioner Management also failed in their attempt in stalling the recovery proceedings as their writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6196 and 6203 of 2009 were dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2009. Thereafter, they made representations to the Government to reconsider the orders passed in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. They approached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.14005 and 14010 of 2009 seeking for a direction to the Government to reconsider their orders passed in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. This Court passed the order dated 23.07.2009 in those writ petitions directing the Government to pass orders on the representations of the petitioner Management seeking reconsideration of the orders passed in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. Subsequently, the Government also passed orders rejecting their representations seeking reconsideration of the orders passed in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112. Challenging the same, the petitioner Management filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.160 and 161 of 2010 and those writ petitions were dismissed on 07.01.2010. Thereafter, they attempted to stall the recovery proceedings by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8466 and 8467 of 2010 seeking to quash the order dated 18.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.506 of 2008 in I.A.No.310 of 2007 in C.P.No.529 of 2004 and I.A.No.507 of 2008 in I.A.No.312 of 2007 in C.P.No.530 of 2004 respectively. Those writ petitions were also dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2010. While dismissing those writ petitions, this Court, in para 8 of the order, has held as follows:
"8.As found by the Labour Court, they are attempting to evade from honouring the earlier Award, which has become final and that computation petitions as against the Award were also concluded and revenue recovery certificate was filed. As rightly contended by Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, the attempt by the management is only to protract the litigation. It is not out of place to note that not even a single paisa has been paid to the workmen despite there being so many orders in their favour. Therefore, the writ petitions are misconceived and bereft of reasons."
24.The Labour Court also came to a similar conclusion that the attempt of the petitioner Management is only to protract the proceedings so that the recovery proceedings could be stalled. In this regard, para 5 of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:
"5.So the reason stated in the petition is not satisfied one. They are attempting to evade from honouring the earlier Award, which has become final and that computation petitions as against the Award were also concluded and revenue recovery certificate was filed. It seems to be that the management is only to protract the litigation. I do not find any merit in this case and it is also seen from the Honour of the High Court passed in W.P.Nos.8466 and 8467/2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 was also dismissed by the High of Madras on 29.4.2010."
I am in entire agreement with the aforesaid findings of the Labour Court.
25.For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
TK
To
The Principal Labour Court
Vellore,
Vellore District
