Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3443 (MAD)

Cethar Ltd. v. District Collector

2015-10-16

S.VIMALA

body2015
ORDER The company is the petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of industrial boilers and power plant equipments, having its registered office at Trichirappalli. The manufacturing unit of the company is at Kumaramangalam Village, Mathur, Pudukottai Village. There were about 130 permanent workers. 2. As the company incurred heavy loss, it was constrained to announce a lock out. The salary, payable to the employees for the month of January and February, 2015, had not been paid. 3. In the company, there are semi finished and unfinished materials to the tune of Rs.234.57 tonnes, belonging to various customers, such as SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Limited, IND Barath Energy (Utkal) Limited and Meenakshi Power, Nellore. They have placed orders for supply of products. The petitioner is not able to complete the production work for want of congenial atmosphere. The Management felt that even if the finished product cannot be supplied, at least the raw materials can be returned to them, so that they can utilize the same in their site “as is where is condition”. The petitioner company is not able to remove the goods from its campus. The removal is being physically obstructed by the labourers. Therefore, this writ of mandamus, has been filed, seeking direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to provide sufficient police protection for a specified period so as to enable the petitioner to remove the materials from the petitioner's factory site at Kumaramangalam Village, Mathur, Pudukottai District. 4. This petition was originally filed against the District Collector, Pudukottai, The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai and the Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukottai District. On 06.07.2015, this Court directed the petitioner to implead the District Secretary of CITU, namely, K.Selvaraj and the General Secretary of Cethar Vessel Labour Union, by name S.Ramesh, as party respondents. Accordingly, both of them were impleaded as R4 and R5 by the order dated 06.07.2015 passed in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015. R6 has been impleaded by the order dated 19.08.2015 in M.P. (MD) 2 of 2015. Both the impleading petitions have been ordered by the Court, where the case was originally pending. 5. The petition was opposed by the 4th respondent on the following grounds; a) The petitioner company is not incurring loss, as contended by the petitioner, but it is prospering. There are 7 units for manufacturing and out of 5000 workers being employed, 130 workers are permanent. 5. The petition was opposed by the 4th respondent on the following grounds; a) The petitioner company is not incurring loss, as contended by the petitioner, but it is prospering. There are 7 units for manufacturing and out of 5000 workers being employed, 130 workers are permanent. These workers are represented by the 4th respondent. Remaining employees are paid through Contractors. Except 130 permanent workers, rest of them have been terminated from service during 2013 to 2014 of whom some of them are agitating their claim before the Labour Court. Many of jobs are being done through sub-contractors. b) The company has utilized the services of the retired employees of BHEL and they are being paid very high. The petitioner company is adopting unfair labour practice. It deliberately did not pay wages to the workers for the month of January, February and March, 2015. As the workers demanded the unpaid wages, the petitioner management declared a lock out. Since then, the company has paid wages for January and 50% of wages for February, 2015. The permission sought for lay off during August, 2014 was declined by the Government. The non-payment of wages was deliberate. The intention of the petitioner company is to remove the semi finished goods to other sister concerns and thus divert the income that has to flow into the coffers of this petitioner company to its sister concern. The consequences of non-payment of salary is known to everyone and it need not be elaborated. 6. On account of non-payment of salary, the employees decided to stay in strike. There was a Peace Committee Meeting in the presence of the Tahsildar, Kolathur. 6.1. It appears, a representation was made before the Court stating that permission is required only to return back the raw materials to the suppliers and money payable by the suppliers would be used for payment of salary due to the workers. 6.2. It had been represented on behalf of the 4th respondent that in the Peace Committee Meeting, the petitioner has agreed to settle the arrears of salary and that if the raw material is allowed to be sold, then the salary will not be paid to the workers. 7. 6.2. It had been represented on behalf of the 4th respondent that in the Peace Committee Meeting, the petitioner has agreed to settle the arrears of salary and that if the raw material is allowed to be sold, then the salary will not be paid to the workers. 7. Considering this submission, this Court appointed Mr.A.Velan, learned counsel as Advocate Commissioner to make an inventory of raw materials available and to return the raw materials to the suppliers and that suppliers will have to make payment to the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate commissioner had inspected the premises and filed the report. 8. In the 1st Report, the Commissioner has stated that the petitioner company provided the list of documents and dues payable by the petitioner company by the customers. The details of four contractors have been furnished. Subsequently, the same Commissioner has been directed to assess the value of materials with the help of experts from BHEL, Trichy. 9. In the 2nd report, the Commissioner has stated that the petitioner, instead of providing list of all contractors, requested the Commissioner not to execute the commission warrant, by alleging that significant development had taken place and it has been brought to the knowledge of the Court. 9.1. The significant development stated to be with reference to the salary payable to the employees of which the petitioner was ready to make arrangements. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally the amount demanded for payment of salary was only Rs.60 lakhs and thereafter, there was a demand for enhanced amount upto Rs.80 lakhs and that the petitioner was prepared to pay the same. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the claim made is accepted by the petitioner, the valuation is unnecessary. Moreover, when the property of which valuation is required is the property belonging to third parties, the valuation made will not be of any use. This submission should be accepted, as the petitioner has expressed its readiness to deposit a sum of Rs.80 lakhs. 12. Moreover, when the property of which valuation is required is the property belonging to third parties, the valuation made will not be of any use. This submission should be accepted, as the petitioner has expressed its readiness to deposit a sum of Rs.80 lakhs. 12. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the labourers, who already contributed their sweat cannot be asked to wait for years together expecting justice from the Labour Court and the valuation of the material is very much essential in order to safeguard the future interest of the labourers, as the status of the company is critically important to them. In support of their claim, the decision supported in 1991 SCR (3) 524 (Bandhu Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India), is relied upon, where-under it has been held that the Court had got power to appoint Commissioner or an investigating body to enquire into the allegations made in the petition. There is no dispute over the proposition laid down. The appointment of Commissioner has been resorted to, not for the purpose of ascertaining / enquiring into the allegations made in the petition and the appointment of Commissioner is beyond the scope of the petition. However, having regard to the interest of the poor employees, whose salary was agreed to be paid by the petitioner, the initial step of appointing the Commissioner is justified. 13. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that the materials which are sought to be valued belong to various customers, who have placed orders and on account of deliberate delay on the part of the labourers, the company of the 6th respondent suffers from irredeemable damage and therefore, the intervention on the part of the labourers is unjustified and the protection as sought for by the petitioner must be ordered in order to protect the interest of the customers. 14. This petition has been specially ordered to be placed before this Court by the order dated 22.09.2015. It was listed on 09.10.2015. 15. The valuation of the property by the Commissioner is a comprehensive and complicated process and that even to assess the value, the assistance of experts are needed. Even after the valuation, it would be a matter of evidence, if the Commissioner's report is not accepted. It was listed on 09.10.2015. 15. The valuation of the property by the Commissioner is a comprehensive and complicated process and that even to assess the value, the assistance of experts are needed. Even after the valuation, it would be a matter of evidence, if the Commissioner's report is not accepted. After the petitioner accepting the payment of salary, the continuation of the valuation is beyond the scope of writ petition. In fact, but for the petitioner agreeing to settle the claim of the employees, even the initial appointment of Commissioner itself would not have been permissible. The limited remedy sought for by the 4th respondent was considered only on account of the fact that the petitioner agreed to settle the dues on account of arrears of salary. Otherwise, the claim of the respondents for arrears of salary could not have been entertained before this Court. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Commissioner to pursue the warrant further, especially when the claim is settled to the extent of Rs.80 lakhs. 16. Admittedly, the remedy open to the employees of the petitioner company is only before the Labour Court. As the management agreed to settle the salary dues of the employees in the Peace Committee Meeting and accordingly, as the petitioner management is ready to part with a sum of Rs.80 lakhs towards payment of salary, no further enquiry is required. 17. The Commissioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.60 lakhs into the Bank account. The amount today paid by the petitioner to the Commissioner has already been deposited into the same Bank. Total sum of Rs.80 lakhs is available with the Bank. The Advocate Commissioner is permitted to withdraw the amount from the Bank and disburse the same to the 130 permanent employees with the assistance of the learned counsel for R4 and the petitioner management. 18. The products in the custody of the company is stated to be the product of the customers, who have placed orders. Whether it is the product of the company or the product of the customers, the employees have no right to obstruct the products being taken out from the premises of the company, more especially when the claim for salary has been settled as agreed to by the petitioner. 19. Whether it is the product of the company or the product of the customers, the employees have no right to obstruct the products being taken out from the premises of the company, more especially when the claim for salary has been settled as agreed to by the petitioner. 19. There is no undertaking on the part of the employees that the employees will not interfere, if the products are taken out. The respondent only insisted upon the valuation to be done by the Commissioner. The respondents have no right to take the law into their hand and obstruct the products being taken out, which would affect the rights of the third party customers. Under such circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to render sufficient police protection to the petitioner to remove the material from the premises as stated in the petition. 20. The remuneration to be payable to the Advocate Commissioner by the petitioner is fixed at Rs.50,000/-, out of which, Rs.25,000/-has already been paid. The petitioner shall pay the balance directly to the Advocate Commissioner. 21. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, subject to the conditions indicated above. Connected MP is closed.