I. Palanisamy, v. The Commissioner Of Labour
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No. 23413 of 2005 1.
I. Palanisamy 2.
R.Ramakrishnan 3.
N. Duraisamy 4.
N.Ravichandran 5.
K.Murugavel 6.
N. Ashok 7.
D. Raman 8.
S.Ganesan 9.
P. Balakrishnan 10.
P. Mahalingam 11.
A. Vijayan 12.
D. Prabhu 13.
K.R.Nagendran 14.
N.Vijayakumar 15.
A. Arumugam 16.
M. Nagarajan 17.
P. Sivakumar 18.
S. Ramachandran 19.
S. Sakthivel 20.
R. Selvaraj 21.
C. Rangaraj 22.
P. Damodharasamy 23.
N. Ravichandran 24.
V. Senthilkumar 25.
N. Devaraj 1/15
26.
R. Kanagaraj 27.
G. Mathiazhagan 28.
D. Balasubramanian 29.
G.Rajendran 30.
M. Kalisamy 31.
K. Sivaprakasan 32.
V. Kannan 33.
D. Rajendran 34.
A. Arulmanicka Raj 35.
R. Kalyanasundaram 36.
V. Appuraj 37.
S. Kumara Vadivel 38.
M. Gunasekaran 39.
R. Aarusamy 40.
R. Ramesh Babu 41.
A. Kulasekaran 42.
B. Mahadevan 43.
A. Marudachalam 44.
A. Edward Louis 45.
P. Vadivelu 46.
M. Pounraj 47.
G. Kuzhandaivelu 48.
S. Rajamani 49.
R. Mohanraj 50.
P. Pannerselvam 51.
A. Marimuthu 52.
N. Padmanabhan 53.
N. Sampathkumar 54.
G. Jayachandran 55.
R. Srinivasan 56.
V. Ramasamy 57.
F. Anthony Raj 58.
V. Sri Kumaran 59.
M. Sakthivel 60.
G. Jayapal 61.
P. Narayanaswamy P. Ramachandran 2/15
63.
R. Arumuvam 64.
V. Appasamy 65.
M. Ramachandran 66.
K. Palanisamy 67.
M. Boopathy 68.
N. Paneerselvam 69.
D. Rajendran 70.
R. Balasubramaniam 71.
T. Pandarinathan 72.
R. Shanmugasundaram 73.
K. Rangaraj 74.
R. Vijayan
...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Madras - 6.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, Conciliation 3, Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore -18.
3. The Management Textool Company Limited, Machinery Division, Coimbatore - 641 006.
4. The Management Lakshmi Machine Works, Periyanayakampalayam, Coimbatore - 20.
5. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file 3/15
of the fifth respondent in C.P.No. 540 to 549 of 2003, 551 to 553, 555 to 563, 565, 566 of 2003, 568 to 574 of 2003, 601, 602 of 2003, 604 to 618 of 2003, 620 to 623 of 2003, 626 to 645 of 2003, 662 and 663 of 2003 dated 14.03.2005 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and grossly irregular and further direct the said respondent to dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For Petitioners : No appearance For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Not ready in notice For R4 : Mr. R.Jayaprakash for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates For R5 : Labour Court W.P.No. 5701 of 2006
1. I. Palanisamy
2. P.Balakrishnan
3. N. Ashok
4. K.Sivaprakasam
5. M.Sakthivel
6. P.Magendran
7. D. Raman
8. D.Balasubramaniam
9. M.Gunasekaran
10. R.Selvaraj 4/15
11. R.Mohanraj
12. S.Ramachandran
13. G.Madhiazhagan
14. G.Rameshbabu
15. M.Nagarajan
16. R.Balasubramaniam
17. M. Kalisami
18. P. Narayanasamy
19. K.Murugavel
20. S.Ganesan
21. V. Appasamy
22. N.Duraisamy
23. G.Rajendran
24. S.Rajamani
25. N.Devarajan
26. A.Arumugam
27. R. Arumugam
28. P.Vadivel
29. K.R.Nagendran
30. U.Srikumaran
31. R.Ramakrishnan
32. M.Ramachandran
33. A.Kulasekaran
34. G.Jayachandran
35. V.Senthilkumar
36. R.Kanagaraj
37. C.Rangaraj
38. P.Sivakumar
39. N.Vijayakumar
40. P.Dhamodharasamy
41. D.Prabu
42. S.Kumaravadivel
43. R.Vijayan
44. T.Pandarinathan
45. M.Pounraj
46. S.Padmanaban
47. V.Ramasamy 5/15
48. N. Panneerselvam
49. R.Srinivasan
50. D.Rajendran
51. A.Vijayan
52. S.Sakthivel
53. A.Marudhachalam
54. R.Aruchamy
55. P.Ramachandran
56. A. Marimuthu
57. N. Boopathy
58. N. Ravichandran
59. N.Sampathkumar
60. G.Kuzhanthaivelu
61. K. Rangaraj
62. F. Antonyraj
63. N. Ravichandran
64. G. Jayapal All of them are working at South India Workers Association, No. 23-A, 8th Street, Ganesh Layout, Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore - 641 006.
..Petitioners Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Madras - 6.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, Conciliation 3, Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore -18.
3. The Management Textool Company Limited, Machinery Division, Coimbatore - 641 006.
6/15
4. The Management Lakshmi Machine Works, Periyanayakampalayam, Coimbatore - 20.
5. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the fifth respondent in C.P.No. 928 to 931 of 2002, 933, 934, 937 to 940 of 2002, 942, 946, 948, 953 to 957/02, 959 to 965/02, 967/02 to 971/02, 973 to 979/02, 981/02, 1051, 1052, 1055, 1056/02, 1061, 1063 of 2002, 1072, 1074, 1075, 1079, 1080/2002, 1083/02 to 1085/02, 1087, 1088/02, 1091 to 1095/02, 1097, 1100, 1101, 1104 and 1106/02 dated 14.03.2005 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and grossly irregular and further direct the said respondent to dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Petitioners : No appearance For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Dismissed Vide Court Order dated 30.09.2011 For R4 : Mr. R.Jayaprakash for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates For R5 : Labour Court 7/15
W.P.No. 29360 of 2006 The Management, M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore - 641 020.
Rep. By its Company Secretary.
... Petitioner Vs 1.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.
2.
R.Ramakrishnan 3.
D. Doraisamy 4.
N.Ravichandran 5.
K.Murugavel 6.
N. Ashok 7.
D. Raman 8.
S.Ganesan 9.
I. Palanisamy 10.
B. Balakrishnan 11.
B. Mahalingam 12.
R. Sadasivam 13.
A. Vijayan 14.
D. Prabhu 15.
R.Nagendiran 16.
G. Kaliyamoorthy 17.
A. Arumugam 18.
M. Nagarajan 19.
P. Sivakumar 20.
S. Ramachandran 21.
N. Sakthivel 22.
R. Selvaraj 23.
C. Rangaraj 24.
P. Damodharasamy 25.
N. Ravichandran 8/15
26.
V. Senthilkumar 27.
N. Devaraj 28.
C. Subramani 29.
R. Kanagaraj 30.
G. Mathialagan 31.
D. Balasubramanian 32.
G.Rajendran 33.
M. Kalichamy 34.
N. Vijayakumaran 35.
K. Sivaprakasam 36.
V. Kannan 37.
G. Rajendran 38.
K.Murugesan 39.
A. Arulmanikaraj 40.
R. Kalyanasundaram 41.
V. Appuraj 42.
S. Kumaranadivel 43.
M. Gunasekaran 44.
R. Aruchamy 45.
G. Ramesh Babu 46.
A. Kulasekaran 47.
B. Mahadevan 48.
A. Marudachalam 49.
A. Edward Louis 50.
B. Vadivelu 51.
M. Pavunraj 52.
G. Kulandaivelu 53.
G. Rajamani 54.
R. Anandakumar 55.
R. Mohanraj 56.
B. Pannelslvam 57.
A. Marimuthu 58.
N. Padmanabhan 59.
S. Chidambaram 60.
D. Ganesan 61.
N. Sampathkumar 62.
G. Jayachandran 9/15
63.
R. Sreenivasan 64.
V. Ramaswamy 65.
Antonyraj 66.
V. Sreekumaran 67.
M. Sakthivel 68.
G. Jayabal 69.
B. Narayanaswamy 70.
B. Ramachandran 71.
R. Arumugam 72.
V. Appasamy 73.
M. Ramachandran 74.
K. Palanichamy 75.
M. Boopathy 76.
N. Pannerselvam 77.
D. Rajendran 78.
R. Balasubramaniam 79.
D. Pandarinathan 80.
R. Shanmugasundaram 81.
K. Rengaraj 82.
V. Vijayan 83.
The Management, Textool Company Limited, Ganapathi, Coimbatore - 600 006.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with common order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.No.540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551,552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 10/15
631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 662 & 663 of 2003, and quash the same in so far as it relates to the observations found in para 12 of the said order.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Jayaprakash for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates For R1 to R8, R10 to R82 : Notice served For R9 : No Appearance
ORDER
These three writ petitions are connected to each other and as such are taken up for disposal by way of this common order.
2. The workmen involved in this case had approached the Labour Court by virtue of individual computation petitions, claiming that the action of the management in illegally closing the unit and not employing them was without following the statutory provisions and as such, they are entitled to the computation of wages as if they continued to be in service. The computation petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the workmen have filed W.P.No.23413 of 2005 and W.P.No. 5701 of 2006. Aggrieved by certain 11/15
observations made in the computation petitions, the management has filed W.P.No. 29360 of 2006.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen, reported no instructions. The names of all the workmen are printed in the cause list. Under these circumstances, this Court took up the matter for hearing.
4. Heard Mr.Jayaprakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management. There is no representation on behalf of the workmen.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management would submit that upon the closure of the petitioner unit, there was a settlement with the trade unions under Section 18(1), and benefits were being paid to the majority of the employees. These are the workmen who didn't choose to accept the said 18(1) settlement and therefore filed these computation petitions. However, pending the writ petitions,the majority of the workmen, about 64 in number have accepted the very same settlement that was given to the other workman, pursuant to the 18(1) settlement entered into with the unions, and have received the amounts. The balance of them have neither 12/15
approached the management nor come forward to pursue the present writ petition. The rest of the workmen, are not also prosecuting the writ petition. However, even though the writ petitions with reference to the computation petitions are now being dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court, it is also recorded that the management is willing to pay the amount covered by the settlement, as in the case of other workmen, as and when they approach the management.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management has also filed the copies of the 64 settlements entered into with the workmen, and the same is taken on record.
7. Accordingly, recording the fact that the majority of the workmen have settled the issue, and in respect of the rest of the workmen, the writ petitions are being dismissed for non-prosecution, however with liberty for them to approach the management to accept the same amount, if they choose to. As far as the writ petition filed by the management is concerned, the same is disposed of, as no further adjudication is necessary, in view of the fact that the matter is settled with reference to the majority of the workmen, and in 13/15
respect of the balance workmen, their writ petitions are dismissed for default. No costs.
02.12.2024 nsl D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
1. The Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Madras - 6.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, Conciliation 3, Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore -18.
14/15
3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.
W.P.Nos.23413 of 2005, 5701 & 29360 of 2006 02.12.2024 15/15