Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 980 (MAD)

Thangavelu Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary Labour and Employment Department

2012-02-23

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem to conclude the conciliation proceedings in pursuance to reference dated 29.04.2011, expeditiously, in terms of the Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 2. M/s. Thangavelu Spinning Mills ltd, is manufacturing Polyester cotton and blended yarn and has employed 350 workers under different categories. The two registered unions of the petitioner, claimed bonus. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after discussion and meetings with the union the Labour Progressive Front union agreed for settlement of bonus issue, under the terms and conditions proposed by the management, but Pattali Thozhir Sangam, the other union did not agree to the terms offered. 4. Faced with this situation, the petitioner sought conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, by reference to the Labour court, Krishnagiri, for statutory settlement. 5. In pursuance to the settlement the bonus has been paid to the workers without any protest, but the workers belonging to Dharmapuri District Panchalai Pattali Thozhir Sangam affiliated to Pattali Makkal Katchi have not joined the duty. 6. Therefore, necessity arose to get the matter conciliated under the statute, and accordingly the dispute was referred to 3rd respondent for reconciliation. 7. Section 12(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act stipulates that conciliation are to be completed within 14 days of commencement of the conciliation, but the 3rd respondent has not commenced the conciliation till date even though matter was referred on 29.04.2011. 8. The notice of this petition was given and time was also granted to the respondents to get instructions but neither counter has been filed nor the State counsel has been able to get instructions. 9. The unrebutted pleadings, therefore shows that the 3rd respondent has failed to perform the statutory duty u/s. 12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, and a writ in the nature of mandamus, is issued to 3rd respondent to immediately commence the proceedings, but not later than one month of the receipt of certified copy of the order and conclude the proceeding as per the procedure laid down under the Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 11 Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.