CHENNAI, JAN 7
The Madras High Court has set aside the orders of two textile mills in Puducherry, which are government undertakings, closing down their shutters.
Justice S Vaidyanathan set aside the orders dated September 29, 2000 of Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Sri Bharathy Mills, units of Swadeshee Bharathi Textiles Mills Limited, government of Puducherrry undertakings, closing them from the very next day i.e. September 30.
The bench recently allowed two writ petitions from the labour unions of the respective mills, challenging the September, 2000 closure orders. They prayed the court to make the units operative.
The judge allowed the petitions and said the amount already received as compensation by the employees under protest shall be adjusted and the remaining amount shall be paid within six months.
Meanwhile, it is open to the employer to make fresh applications for closure of the undertakings in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, if so advised, after complying with the mandatory statutory provisions and after the waiting period, if any provided under the Act, the matter may be taken up by the authority concerned.
“This Court is of the view that the Corporation is a part of the government of Puducherry and in case any closure application is filed, it can be scrutinized by the authority concerned and the matter can be straight away referred to a Tribunal, so that, instead of two adjudications, namely, one before the authority and the other one before the Tribunal, a comprehensive decision can be taken.” The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, needs to be amended to enable a Labour Court or Tribunal to decide the issue, as the IAS officers, who are entrusted with such quasi-judicial work, lack familiarity with the strict provisions of the Act on account of their other administrative/official duties, the court said.
“It is made clear that if any of the Workmen have already settled the dispute and accepted the monetary benefits, they will not be entitled to any relief. The employees, whose claims have already been settled, cannot be allowed to have the best of both the benefits,” the judge said.
