The Management Of Funskool v. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.Nos.15516, 31793 of 2002 and W.M.P.Nos.20785, 19168 of 2002 W.P.No.15516 of 2002 The Management of Funskool (India) Ltd, Lalapet, Mukuntharayapuram Post, Ranipet 632 405. Rep. by its Finance Manager & Company Secretary
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.
2. The Management, MRF Leather Division, 124 Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.K.Mani 4.E.Rajendthiran 5.M.Murugan 6.L.Subramani 7.C.M.Rajenthiran 8.N.Settu 9.K.M.Sekar 10.A.Bashkaran 11.M.Sambath 12.S.Sundharamurthi
13.P.Rennu 14.P.Murthi 15.V.Sekar 16.B.Kumary 17.M.M.Pichandi 18.R.Ramamurthy 19.S.Umapathy 20.G.Kumaresan 21.Y.Chellaiyan 22.V.Muruganandham 23.V.K.Subramani 24.K.Chinnadhurai 25.K.M.Kollapury 26.M.Tamil Selvan 27.K.C.Rajenthiran 28.E.Ravishankar 29.K.Sagundhala 30.P.Santhira 31.G.Parasuraman 32.P.Ekambaram 33.M.Janarthanan 34.V.Ragavellu 35.T.Sundhararajan 36.T.Nirmala Shanthakumari 37.K.Raji
38.G.Murugan 39.V.Murukesan 40.P.Parvathi 41.S.Adimulam 42.P.Parvathy 43.K.Munisami 44.T.S.Bhaskaran 45.S.Palani 46.S.Chinnadhurai 47.M.Yashotha 48.V.Narasammal 49.J.Kokila 50.K.Nagarajan 51.E.Manalan 52.T.V.Munisami 53.R.Jayakumar 54.V.Perumal 55.E.Samuvel 56.R.Govindasami 57.K.Venkatesan 58.R.Pichandi 59.K.Ravi 60.D.Thiruvarangam 61.A.Kattikan 62.C.Panchai
63.M.Sankaran 64.M.Kanniyappan 65.N.Shanthi 66.V.Parasuraman 67.G.Sanjeevi 68.A.K.Subramani 69.P.Govindasami 70.R.Muniyan 71.T.Sabapathi 72.S.Banumurthi
...Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from adjudicating the disputes in I.D.Nos.278 of 2001 to 347 of 2001 raised by the respondents 3 to 72. For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For R1 : Labour Court For R2 : Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.S.Ramasubramanian Asso.
For R3 to R72 : Mr.K.M.Ramesh W.P.No.31793 of 2002 The Management, MRF Ltd., 124, Greems Road, Chennai 600 006.
...Petitioner
-Vs1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.
2. Labour Officer - 1.
Vellore.
3. Commissioner of Labour, Labour Welfare Board Building, DMS Compound, Chennai - 600 006.
4. Funskool (India) Ltd., Lalapet, Mukuntharayapuram Post Ranipet - 632 405 5.K.Mani 6.E.Rajendiran 7.M.Murugan 8.L.Subramani 9.C.M.Rajendiran 10.N.Sait
11. K.M.Sekar 12.A.Baskaran 13.M.Sampath 14.M.Sundaramoorthy 15.P.Renu 16.P.Moorthy 17.V.Sekar 18.B.Kumari 19.N.M.Pichandi 20.R.Ramamoorthy 21.S.Umapathi 22.G.Kumaresan 23.Y.Chellaiyan 24.V.Muruganandam
25.V.K.Subramani 26.K.Chinnadurai 27.K.M.Kollapurai 28.M.Tamilselvan 29.K.C.Rajendiran 30.E.Ravi Sankar 31.K.Sakunthala 32.P.Chandira 33.G.Parasuraman 34.P.Ekambaram 35.M.Janarthanam 36.V.Ragavelu 37.T.Sundararajan 38.K.Nirmala Santha kumari 39.K.Raju 40.G.Murugan 41.V.Murugesan 42.P.Parvathy 43.S.Adhimoolam 44.A.Balakrishnan 45.K.Munuswamy 46.T.S.Baskaran 47.S.Palani 48.S.Chinnadurai 49.M.Yesodha
50.V.Narasammal 51.J.Kokila 52.K.Nagarajan 53.E.Manalan 54.T.U.Munuswamy 55.R.Jayakumar 56.V.Perumal 57.E.Samuel 58.R.Govindaswamy 59.K.Venketesan 60.R.Pichandi 61.K.Ravi 62.D.Thiruvengadam 63.A.Katikan 64.C.Pachai 65.M.Sankaran 66.M.Kanniappan 67.N.Santhi 68.V.Parasuraman 69.G.Sanjeevi 70.A.K.Subramani 71.P.Govindaswamy 72.R.Muniyan 73.T.Sabapathy
74.S.Bhanumoorthy 75.P.V.Raman 76.N.S.Loganathan 77.G.Mani 78.Ms.Vijaya 79.N.M.Subramani 80.M.Sivalingam 81.C.Pichandi 82.K.Muniyandi 83.J.Pushpa 84.K.Balaraman 85.Y.Joys 86.S.Krishnaveni 87.N.Sundaramoorthy 88.P.Vinayagam 89.S.M.Rajendiran 90.A.Sulochana 91.M.Ganapathi 92.G.Arumugam 93.G.Raman 94.E.Thomas 95.K.Parthiban 96.L.Ulaganathan 97.V.Sivakumar 98.M.Krishnamoorthy
99.K.Perumal 100.P.Sagadevan 101.E.James 102.S.Murugan 103.N.Malika 104.A.Rajendiran
...Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the First Respondent from adjudicating the disputes in I.D.Nos.278 of 2001 to 347 of 2001 and 2 of 2002 to 31 of 2002 raised by the Respondents 5 to 104.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.S.Ramasubramanian Asso.
For R1 : Labour Court For R2 & R3 : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For R5 to R104 : Mr.K.M.Ramesh COMMON ORDER For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their names.
2. The private respondents herein are the erstwhile employees of the Leather Division of MRF Limited. In December 1998, the Funskool Unit leased out their property, in which MRF Limited was running its Leather Division. The private respondents, through the Trade Union, had entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act with MRF Limited, whereby, the services of these respondents, together with other employees, were settled on 25.08.1997 and the necessary compensation was also paid to them. In this background, these private respondents, numbering about 70 and 100, raised disputes on 20.12.2000 before the Labour Officer, Vellore, predominantly claiming re-employment under Funskool Unit.
3. When the Section 18(1) settlement was arrived between the Trade Union and MRF Limited, all these workmen had approximately
put in services between 12 and 20 years. Apparently, 24 years have passed, since the settlement was arrived at. These writ petitions were filed in the year 2002 and the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer has also been stayed. These workmen, who are the private respondents in these writ petitions, have either reached the age of superannuation or at the verge of reaching the age of superannuation. In this background, the grounds raised in these writ petitions as well as the claims made in the dispute, were looked into.
4. It is not in dispute that the workmen, who have raised the industrial dispute, were members of the Trade Union, which had reached the settlement under Section 18(1) on 25.08.1997. As per the terms of the settlement, each of the workmen were paid compensation/ex-gratia amounts, as full and final settlement, pursuant to which they had also tendered their resignations before the Management of MRF Limited (Leather Division). In this background, the Funskool Unit had commenced its operations in the month of December, 1998 on the location where the Leather Division of MRF Limited was in operation, on a lease basis.
5. The only ground which the workmen seem to have taken is that the Funskool Unit is a part of MRF group of companies and therefore, they are entitled for re-employment. The workers also seem to claim that they were coerced to accept to the terms of settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) between MRF Limited and the Union.
6. While the learned counsel for the private respondents would refer to Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the purpose of claiming re-employment on the ground that they were retrenched workmen, the counsels for both the managements would submit that since these workmen before this Court, are not the employees of Funskool Unit and also since they were settled through a Section 18(1) settlement, dated 25.08.1997, they are estopped from making any claim in connection with their reinstatement or re-employment. It is also the case of these managements that the business of Funskool Unit has got nothing to do with the business of MRF Limited and that they are independent entitees. It is also their submission that when the Trade Union had raised similar disputes before the Labour Officer, Vellore, against the Funskool Unit, the same was rejected, on the ground that there was no employee/employer relationship between the workmen of the Trade Union and the management of Funskool and therefore, they are not entitled to claim re-employment.
7. From the submissions made by the respective counsels, the only ground on which the workmen seem to have made an attempt to
claim re-employment is that they were illegally retrenched from the services of MRF Limited and therefore, they are entitled to be re-employed by Funskool Unit, which is claimed as a subsidiary company under the MRF group.
8. The dispute before the Labour Court in this connection cannot be effectively permitted to continue for two reasons. Firstly, the individual workers had predominantly sought for the relief of re-employment. Admittedly, the age which these workmen have now attained, cannot be a feasible age for the management of Funskool to re-employ them, since they have either reached the age of superannuation or are at the verge of reaching the age of superannuation. Secondly, this is a case where these individual workmen/ respondents were settled through a Section 18(1) settlement and have also acted on the terms of the settlement, by receiving the compensation/ex-gratia and tendered their individual resignations.
There is absolutely no prima facie material produced before this Court or the Labour Court to substantiate that they were coerced to receive the compensation. Above all, when the Funskool Unit had commenced their operations in the concerned site in the month of December, 1998, the Union have made a faint attempt to seek for re-employment for their members with the Funskool Unit, which dispute was also rejected by the Labour Officer, Vellore, on 09.05.2000. 9.
The fact remains that these individual workmen/respondents have received their compensations, pursuant to the settlement arrived on their behalf by the Trade Union and have also acted on the terms by tendering their resignations to the erstwhile management. There does not seem to be any employee/employer relationship between the Funskool Unit and these individual workmen, even as per the averments made by them in the petition filed under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. While that being so, this Court is unable to comprehend as to how the Labour Court can effectively adjudicate the dispute raised by these workmen and thereafter decide the same, for the purpose of re-employing them in Funskool Unit, particularly, in the light of their respective ages. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no effective orders can be passed in the dispute raised by the workers in I.D.Nos.278 of 2001 to 347 of 2001 and 2 of 2002 to 31 of 2002. As such, if the dispute is permitted to be adjudicated, it would only be a futile exercise and hence, this Court would be justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the same.
11. Though the petitioners herein have sought for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in I.D.Nos.278 of 2001 to 347 of 2001 and 2 of 2002 to 31 of 2002, if permitted to be adjudicated, would only be a futile exercise, in view of the aforesaid reasons. Hence, it would be justifiable to modify the prayers sought for by the writ petitioners.
12. In the light of the above observations, the proceedings in I.D.Nos.278 of 2001 to 347 of 2001 and 2 of 2002 to 31 of 2002, on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore, are quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk To
1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.
2. The Labour Officer - 1.
Vellore.
3. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Welfare Board Building, DMS Compound, Chennai - 600 006.
+1CC to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, Sr.No.41995 +1CC to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate, Sr.No.42535 +1Cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.42705 W.P.Nos.15516, 31793 of 2002 and W.M.P.Nos.20785, 19168 of 2002 GPL (CO) K.RK. (01.10.2021)