This High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging a Labour Court award granting compensation to workmen denied reinstation after their apprenticeship period ended following an illegal strike and criminal activities.
Writ petitions dismissed; Labour Court award dated 20.08.2003 upheld; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.09.2023
DELIVERED ON : 10.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.27358 of 2004
W.P.No.22629 of 2004:-
The Management of Pariyur Amman Spinning Mills Ltd., Polavakkalipalayam (Post), Gobichettipalayam-638 476.
... Petitioner
-Vs-
Page 1 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
Page 2 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
Page 3 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
W.P.No.22234 of 2006:-
Page 4 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
Page 5 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
... Petitioners
-Vs-
Page 6 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
1. The Presiding Officer,
The Labour Court, Salem.
... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records relating to the Common Award of the first respondent Labour Court dated 20.08.2003 in Industrial Disputes Nos.20 to 29 of 1998, 31 to 73 of 1998, 77 to 92 of 1998, 114 to 118 of 1998, 316 to 318 of 1998, 540 of 1998 and 542 of 1998, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service, backwages award costs.
In W.P.No.22629 of 2004
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents
R1 : Court R2 to R77 : Mr.A.Ajay Khose
In W.P.No.22234 of 2006
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ajay Khose R1 : Court For R2 : Mr.Balan Haridas
Page 7 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the common award passed
by the Labour Court, Salem, dated 20.08.2003, thereby ordered to pay
compensation to each workman.
W.P.No.22234 of 2006 are hereinafter called as Workmen. The petitioner in W.P.No.22629 of 2004 and the second respondent in W.P.No.22234 of 2006 are hereinafter called as Management.
had started its Mill in the year 1992 and there were more than 200 workers. The Workmen were aggrieved by the action of the Management in not extending the benefits of E.S.I., P.F., Festival Holidays, Casual Leave, Earned Leave, etc., and as such they issued a strike notice and struck down work from 24.02.1997. Though
there was conciliation before the Conciliation Officer, the Conciliation Officer
Page 8 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
advised the Workmen to resume work unconditionally. Therefore, all the Workmen reported for work on 17.04.1997. However, the Management insisted that the workers should sign an undertaking that the Workmen should not hold Union membership and they will not participate in a strike and if they do participate, they will be stopped from the work etc. Therefore, the Workmen refused to sign the undertaking and as such, the Management had taken a stand that unless the Workmen sign the undertaking, they will not be permitted to resume duty. Therefore, they raised a dispute under Section 2(A) of the ID Act, before the Labour Officer on 20.04.1997. Since no settlement was reached, the Labour Officer gave a report to the Government. Thereafter, on reference, the Workmen filed their claim petitions. The Labour Court ordered only compensation and denied reinstatement with all other benefits.
Management in insisting upon the workers to sign an undertaking before resuming
Page 9 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
work is illegal. Even then, the Labour Court concluded that insisting upon an undertaking is not violative of any legal procedures. It further held that there was
no evidence to show that the Management insisted upon an undertaking, though Ex.M39 series was marked before the Labour Court. The Workmen were never offered any job and as such, there was no question of abandoning their service.
Therefore, the refusal of employment to the Workmen would amount to illegal termination. When the Labour Court concluded in favour of the Workmen, the Labour Court ought to have ordered for reinstatement with other attendant benefits. The denial of employment is void ab initio as non-employment amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
were only trainees. It is a well settled position that statutorily recognized practice
to engage persons as apprentice, other than apprentices under the Apprentice Act, Page 10 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
1961, in industries to impart training and help them to acquire certain skills. Without considering the same, the Labour Court concluded that the trainees are Workmen, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The certified standing order of the Management is constituted under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Section 1(3) of the said Act, applies to every industrial establishment wherein 20 or more Workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months. Therefore, it is binding upon the employer and employee and it has a statutory force. It is not the case of the Management that the Workmen are not Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, the apprentice is also included in the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it is not a case of retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb) is only applicable to this case, since the Workmen were taken only as an
Apprentice on contract basis for a specific period. They were engaged in training Page 11 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
for specific period viz., three years. Therefore, there was no antecedent formalities to terminate the contract of apprenticeship, much less a domestic enquiry. Therefore, after the period of apprenticeship, the employee has no right of appointment. During the period of apprenticeship, if any employee committed any misconduct, they will be relieved from the apprenticeship as per the contract of apprenticeship. When the Labour Court accepted that the Workmen were indulged in illegal strike, which is a misconduct, it ought not to have granted any compensation.
Mr.A.Ajay Khose, the learned counsel for the Workmen and perused the materials
available on record.
stages. During the period of training, they were paid stipend. Under the said Page 12 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
scheme, the settlement was drawn under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and all the Workmen agreed to the terms of settlement and signed the
settlement as token of its acceptance. The scheme as well as the settlement were marked before the Labour Court.
end at the efflux of time unless it was extended by specific order issued by the Management. Further, if the work of an employee is not satisfactory, the Management is empowered under the scheme to discharge them summarily. As per Section 18(1) Settlement which was marked as R29, all the employees of the Management Mill were given training in order to their betterment of employment. During the course of their employment, an employee viz., T.Kumar attempted to commit theft by entering into the administrative office of the Management. Immediately, on raising of alarm, he was caught red handedly. On the complaint,
he was brought into the police custody. On hearing the said news, the Workmen
Page 13 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
who were in the IIIrd shift, stopped the work abruptly and gathered in front of the Administrative Office. They also prevented the Police personnels to take further
action as against the said T.Kumar. Thereafter, they did not resume work and went on strike. Though some of the employees were reporting for work, some of the employees prevented and obstructed them from reporting to work and threatened
them with dire consequences. Therefore, the Management lodged complaint.
No.272 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC. After Page 14 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam Police Station filed a final report and the same had been taken cognizance in C.C.No.132 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Gobichettipalayam. In fact, the Labour Officer advised the Workmen to report for work. Thereafter, again the Management issued notice to the Workmen to report for work immediately on 16.04.1997. However, the Workmen had not reported for work. The Management had insisted for individual employee to give undertaking at the time of reporting for work. It was also accepted by some of the Union and the employees had given their undertaking. However, the Workmen in the present writ petitions refused to do so and they failed to report work. Thereafter, they raised dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act individually, alleging that they were refused employment.
an Apprentice that too under the contract of apprenticeship training for the period Page 15 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
of 36 months. Therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act alone is applicable to them and Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted against them. Whereas, the Workmen contended that the Management violated Section 2(oo) and Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The apprentice is also a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also seen that the Management, immediately filed the writ petition against the award passed by the Labour Court. But the Workmen challenged the award after a period of three years from the date of the award, insofar as its non awarding reinstatement into service with backwages. Out of 61 Workmen, 14 Workmen had already entered into settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the Management. The remaining Workmen only challenged the award that too after a period of three years from the date of the award. That apart, after filing final report in Crime No.234 of 1997 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 506(2) of IPC, accused persons admitted their guilt and paid their fine before the
concerned Magistrate.
Page 16 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
Gobichettipalayam is concerned, all the accused persons were convicted by the Criminal Court for the offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of IPC.
reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1266 in the case of Maharashtra Labour
Union vs Pride Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Another, wherein it was held that though the
Workmen had taken a specific stand that strike is legal, they did not follow the legal formalities and they also indulged in criminal activities, before going on strike and when the act on the part of the Management is justified, the Management is entitled to ask for a bond and undertaking of good behaviour in writing from such Workmen. The Management is also entitled to ask them to write such undertaking or bond in a particular form provided for protecting its interest.
As a natural corollary, it goes without saying that it is legally entitled not to allow
Page 17 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
such Workmen to enter the premises till he furnishes such undertaking or bond of good behaviour. Therefore, the Labour Court had rightly awarded compensation instead of reinstatement of Workmen into service.
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
have to be clothed with jurisdiction to deal with them, should be treated as final between the parties, unless, of course, it is shown that the impugned finding is based on no evidence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in
AIR 1964 SC 477 in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs K.S.Radhakrishnan and others.
devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions
are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
10.10.2023
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order mn
Page 19 of 20
W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
Pre-delivery order made in W.P.Nos.22629 of 2004 and 22234 of 2006
10.10.2023
Page 20 of 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in awarding compensation instead of reinstatement to workmen dismissed from apprenticeship training.
Whether the management was justified in refusing to allow workmen to enter premises without an undertaking of good behaviour following criminal conduct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharashtra Labour Union vs Pride Hotels Pvt. Ltd and AnotherRelied on¶12
2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1266 · Who else cites this
Syed Yakoob Vs K.S.Radhakrishnan and othersReferred¶14
AIR 1964 SC 477 · Who else cites this
9 provisions across 3 enactments
The Management of Pariyur Amman Spinning Mills Ltd.
Pushpalatha
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
