M/S.Kandasamy Spinning Mills v. Rathinam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.16171 of 2025 M/s.Kandasamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Suriyampalayam, Bhavani Main Road, Vasavi College Post, Erode Taluk, Erode District.
... Petitioner Vs.
Muthusamy (died) 1.Rathinam 2.Maniprakash
3. Rupan Dulasimani (died) 4.Gowri Sankar Mani (died) 5.Jothi 6.Saravanan 7.Cithra Kulanthaisamy (died) 8.Karunakaran 9.Kasilingam 10.Dhanalakshmi Muthusamy (died) 11.Ammaniyammal Page No.1 of 12
12.Cithra
13. Karuppusamy Ponnusamy (died) 14.Parisammal 15.Thambiraj 16.Ruthprakasi 17.Saroja 18.Manju
19. Madankumar Rangasamy (died) 20.Meenachi 21.Radha Ramasamy (died) 22.Baby 23.Yuvaraj Dhanapal (died) 24.Selvi 25.Senthil 26.Pukalenthi Palanisamy (died) 27.Dhanalakshmi 28.Devagi 29.Suguna 30.Vengatesh Subramani (died) 31.Palaniyammal 32.Vasanthi 33.Kanchana 34.Prabhu 35.Imaya 36.Valliyammal Rajamanickam (died) 37.Gandhimathi 38.Ramesh Subramaniyam (died) 39.Arukkani 40.Saravanakumar Page No.2 of 12
41.Mahalakshmi 42.Nirmala 43.Minor Subisksha rep by mother Nirmala 44.Minor Gurupranith rep by mother Nirmala Mani (died) 45.Saraswathi 46.Padmapriya 47.Sivalingam Thiyagarajan (died) 48.Leelavathi 49.Saravanan 50.Divya Kuppusamy (died) 51.Jagadeswari 52.Latha 53.Santhi Subramani (died) 54.Saraswathi 55.Palanisamy 56.Karuppasamy Suppu (died) 57.Rajamani 58.Bakiyaraj 59.Anandhajothi Babu @ Malaiyan (died) 60.Sirangayi 61.Latha 62.Dhavamani Gurusamy (died) 63.Lakshmi 64.Matheswaran 65.Karthick Rajendran (died) 66.Chinnathayi 67.Sivaraman 68.Sampuranam Muthusamy (died) Page No.3 of 12
69.Dhanasekaran 70.Velmurugan Archunan (died) 71.Suguna 72.Nagaraj 73.Durga Gopal (died) 74.Subbulakshmi 75.Priya 76.Nandhini Rajendran (died) 77.Karpagam 78.Kanagavalli 79.Kalaivani 80.Ishwarya Dulasimani(died) 81.Pungodi 82.Tamilmani 83.Valiyammal Kathirvel (died) 84.Selvi 85.Mythili 86.Gomathi 87.Lakshmi Munnusamy (died) 88.Vijaya 89.Sivakumar 90.Sasikumar Loganathan (died) 91.Manimegalai 92.Manikandan 93.Santhosh 94.Anitha Ramasamy (died) 95.Kanagavalli 96.Radha Arumugam (died) Page No.4 of 12
97.Paripuranam 98.Kalaivani 99.Mano Murugesan (died) 100.Kandasamy Kesavan (died) 101.Rajalakshmi 102.Monika 103.Narendran Jayaraman (died) 104.Yasotha 105.Abinaya 106.Suriya Dhatchanaamoorthy (died) 107.Tamilselvi 108.Sandhiya Ganesan (died) 109.Manimegalai 110.Krishnakumar 111.Vengatesan Subramani (died) 112.Dhanapakiyam 113.Kalaivanan 114.Masiladevi Santhalingam (died) 115.Poongodi 116.Lakshna 117.Intharesh Ayyasami @ Ayyavu (died) 118.Madheswari 119.Jagadeeswaran 120.Prabakaran Sellavel (died) 121.Malliga 122.Soundaryavalli 123.Vasugi 124.Lakshmi Page No.5 of 12
Selvaraj (died) 125.Rajamani 126.Kanagaraj Shanmuga (died) 127.Padmavathi 128.Anbarasi 129.Gunasangeetha 130.Valarmathi Raju (died) 131.Kuppusamy 132.Shanmugam 133.Duraisamy Mani @ Sellappan (died) 134.Kanchana 135.Manikam 136.Sathishkumar 137.Sangeetha 138.Karuppayi Loganathan (died) 139.Tamilarasi 140.Vijay 141.Jeeva Chandran (died) 142.Ambiga 143.Rajendran Ramasamy (died) 144.Kuruvayi 145.Muruganantham 146.Saranya Raju (died) 147.Sumathi 148.Sowmiya 149.Sandhiya 150.Pongiyammal Periyasamy (died) 151.Rajathi 152.Sumathi Page No.6 of 12
153.Lalitha Mayilsamy (died) 154.Rajamma 155.Kasthuri 156.Prakash Jothimuthu (died) 157.Malarkodi 158.Tamilarasan 159.Tamilarasi Govindasamy (died) 160.Pushpalatha 161.Deepanraj Matheswaran (died) 162.Puvaneswari 163.Sathishkumar 164.Nirmal Kumar Ramasamy (died) 165.Palaniyammal 166.Tamilselvi 167.Gunsekaran Ganesan (died) 168.Vijaya 169.Hemalatha 170.Sarulatha 171.Dhanaprakash Angukannan (died) 172.Anandkumar 173.Nithya ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned common order dated 01.02.2025 made in all the I.A.Nos.1 of 2024 filed in the respective I.D.Nos.89, 95, 99, 101 to 104, 106 to 111, 115, 121, 126, 129, 134, 156 to 158, 170, 171, 179, 197, 209, Page No.7 of 12
211, 212, 215, 221, 224, 227, 228, 243, 248, 252, 291, 300, 302, 306, 308, 309, 312, 326, 327, 333, 336, 359, 362, 368, 375, 376, 671, 672, 676 and 687 of 2004 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned common order dated 01.02.2025 made in all the I.A.Nos.1 of 2024 filed in the respective I.D.Nos.89, 95, 99, 101 to 104, 106 to 111, 115, 121, 126, 129, 134, 156 to 158, 170, 171, 179, 197, 209, 211, 212, 215, 221, 224, 227, 228, 243, 248, 252, 291, 300, 302, 306, 308, 309, 312, 326, 327, 333, 336, 359, 362, 368, 375, 376, 671, 672, 676 and 687 of 2004 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and quash the same.
2. Since no adverse order has been passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. Page No.8 of 12
3. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner mill was established in the year 1965 and it has the capacity of 12000 spindles with 27 frames. It was running two shifts with total strength of 100 workers. Periyar Mavatta Nool Aalai Thozhilalargal Sangam, Erode raised a charter of demands and the dispute was referred to the conciliation proceedings. Immediately, the union had issued a strike notice dated 27.08.1982 by announcing the strike from 11.09.1982 and the union had commencing the illegal strike prior to the date fixed. During strike and rioting, one Subramanian was murdered by the workers who had indulged within the mill. The police had arrested 188 workers belonging to the Sangam and Crime No.216 of 1993 was registered by SHO, Chithode P.S.
Whileso, communication between Periyar Mavatta Nool Aalai Thozhilalargal Sangam and JC of Labour stating that strike notice was withdrawn and workers would report for duty. However, no workers reported for duty. The petitioner mill sent a communication to the Union stating that none of the workers had reported for duty. Thereafter, the workmen filed respective industrial disputes before the Labour Court claiming reinstatement and other benefits. There are series Page No.
of litigation in between the petitioner and the workmen before this Court as well as the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the same, 56 workmen died, however, without disclosing the same, the counsels filed vakalath on their behalf before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court. Whileso, the legal heirs of the deceased workmen filed Interlocutory Applications in the respective I.D.s and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 01.02.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workmen have filed industrial disputes before the Labour Court claiming reinstatement and other benefits and the same is pending. Though there are series of limitation in between the petitioner and the workmen before this Court as well as the Supreme Court, however, during the pendency of the writ petition and the writ appeal in the Supreme Court, the workmen died. However, without disclosing the death of the workmen, the advocates continued to file Vakalath before this Court as well as the Supreme Court. After 20 years, the legal heris filed application to represent the estate of the deceased workmen, however, without Page No.10 of 12
considering the limitation issue, the Labour Court allowed the I.A. in I.D., which is not sustainable, which adversely affect the interest of the petiitoner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the respective 56 workmen died during the pendency of the litigation before this Court and upto the level of Supreme Court and thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased workmen filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 in the respective I.D. to implead them as legal heirs of the deceased workmen in the main case to get appropriate relief and the said application was allowed. Mere technical ground that the application for impleading the legal heirs cannot be rejected as someone has to represent the deceased workmen. In the present case, the legal heirs of the deceased workmen necessarily has to be given opportunity to represent the deceased workmen. The said issue was rightly appreciated by the Labour Court and allowed the respective interlocutory applications, which needs no interference.
Page No.11 of 12
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to canvass all those issues before the Labour Court. Further, the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the industrial disputes filed by the workmen as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.
Page No.12 of 12