AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The writ petitioners, who are 39 in number, seek for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider their representation
dated 25.02.2012 sent individually, in accordance with the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2086 of 1998, dated 03.08.2007, which was
confirmed by the order of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1612 of 2007 dated 29.01.2009. On notice from this Court, Mrs. Malarvizhi Udaya
Kumar is appearing for the 1st respondent. On behalf of the impleaded 2nd respondent, the learned Special Government Pleader Mr. P.L.
Shanmugasundaram takes notice.
A perusal of the representation made by the petitioners will show that they belong to a group of 140 workmen employed by the 1st respondent
Sugar Mill and are working on daily wages basis. In fact, some of the workmen are working in the Mill, since the time the Mill was constructed, in
different sections in the construction area. It is seen from the records that Industrial Dispute was raised by the workmen stating that their services
have been terminated unjustifiably by the 1st respondent Mill. The industrial dispute was raised in the year 1995 and it was referred to the Labour
Court and a common award was passed on 14.11.1998 rejecting the claim of the workmen.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, 140 workmen challenged the said common award by filing W.P. No. 2086 of 1998. This
Court disposed of the said writ petition on 03.08.2007. In para 9 of the order, it was held that there was no scope for granting the relief of
reinstatement, back wages and other benefits as claimed by the petitioners, however, their names can be included in the list of the seasonal
workers on non-permanent basis. In para 10 of the order, it was observed by this Court as follows:-
... the impugned common award of the first respondent Labour Court is set aside and the same is replaced by this order. The second respondent
Sugar Mills is directed to include the names of the petitioners in the list and provide them with an opportunity for such engagement during crushing
season on rotational basis as is being offered to other similarly placed workers. The second respondent Sugar Mills is directed to carry out the
above said exercise in the next crushing season of 2007-2008 and shall continue to do so depending upon the exigency of the situation warranting
their engagement.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent filed writ appeal being W.A. No. 1612 of 2007. The Division
Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal by order dated 29.01.2009. In para 9 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held that the
Management cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge since no workmen have been granted reinstatement
and backwages and there is no scope for interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Though this decision of the Division Bench
was passed as early as in January 2009, the petitioners curiously sent individual representations during November 2012 seeking for engaging them
in the crushing Mill. They alleged that 45 new workmen have been appointed by the Mill. It is this representation they want to be considered.
The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated Nil-November 2012. In paragraphs 5 to 7 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as
follows:-
It is submitted that the above order is very specific directing the first respondent to engage the petitioner in the crushing season depending upon
the exigency of the situation warranting their engagement. The first respondent is a cooperative sugar mill and it is a seasonal industry. The sugar
mill is having permanent casual workmen during seasonal time and also number of casual workmen was employed during seasonal crushing season.
These permanent workmen itself are without work during the unseasonal time and often they are surplus. Hence, the question of engaging the
petitioner has not arisen.
It is further submitted that the sugar mill is having a number of employees during crushing season and casual employees have also filed Writ
Petitions in the Hon''ble High Court praying for regularization and not to employ any outsider till that time. (W.P. No. 3240 of 2007).
It is submitted that the Writ Petition praying for a direction to implement the orders of the Division Bench may not be feasible of compliance
since there are already number of casual workers yet to be engaged in the crushing season and giving work to the contract workers is not possible.
Further, there is a surplus of workers already without job and the question of engaging the petitioner has not arisen. There is no exigency to employ
the petitioners herein.
In support of the said averments made in the counter affidavit, Mrs. Malarvizhi Udayakumar appearing for the 1st respondent produced a copy
of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 3240/2007 and 7976/2006, dated 19.1.2011. In those two writ petitions, two other trade unions
working in the same Mill sought for regularization of service of their members. Those two writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by a
common order dated 19.01.2011. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said decision has held as follows:-
In view of the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties concerned, the Government of Tamil Nadu, the fourth respondent, in W.P. No. 3240 of 2007, is directed to consider the
proposal for the regularization of the employees of the third respondent sugar mills, in W.P. No. 3240 of 2007 and W.P. No. 7976 of 2006, and
pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The third respondent Sugar Mills shall continue to engage the members of the petitioner Unions, in their respective works, until a final decision is
taken by the State Government, with regard to the regularization of their services. In the meantime, the respondents would be at liberty to fill up the
vacancies in the various posts, to which the members of the petitioner Unions would not be eligible or entitled to, by way of direct recruitment."" It
is, in the light of this direction, the case of the petitioners will have to be considered.
The petitioners are non-employees. Contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, basing upon the order passed by this Court, which
was confirmed by the Division Bench, wherein only a direction to engage them during the crushing season of 2007-2008 and thereafter, depending
upon the exigency of the situation warranting their engagement, the petitioners cannot maintain the present writ petition as the present case gives
rise to a new cause of action. The present attempt of the petitioners in sending individual representations seeking for reinstatement as against the 1st
respondent itself cannot be considered as their original relief of reinstatement has been negatived not only by the Labour Court but by the learned
Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench. On the other hand, only depending upon the exigency of work in the Mill, they were directed to be
considered. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be said to be arisen out the cause of action of the earlier award, which was modified by this
Court in the second writ petition. The present cause of action is a new cause of action. Unless the petitioners make out a case, the question of
giving direction cannot arise. As against the Co-operative Societies, no writ petition can be filed, in the light of the large bench Judgment of this
Court in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, .
The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Vs. Neethivilangan Kumbakonam, for contending that when the employer refuses to give the benefit, the workman is entitled to have
his right enforced by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that case, the grievance was projected against the State
own Transport Corporation and therefore, the question of maintainability of the writ petition was not in question. On the other hand, in the present
case, the 1st respondent is a Co-operative Society. Even subsequent to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the State Government has
amended the Industrial Disputes Act u/s 11(B) providing for execution of any award/order passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, it is not
necessary that workman should represent before this Court for executing an award. As noted already, there is no relief granted in favour of the
petitioner to be executed by this Court. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.