JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. In a public interest, W.P. No.330 of 2018, filed by Mr.Varaki, with a prayer to direct the first respondent to call the 2nd and 3rd respondents and other 34 Unions and to settle the dispute immediately and to restore peaceful function of the Tamil Nadu Transport in order to maintain the public order, on 05.01.2018, the Hon'ble First Bench, has passed the following order: "This writ petition has been filed by way of public interest litigation seeking appropriate orders for restoration of public transport services, which have been disrupted by reason of a flash strike by Transport Corporation workers, pursuant to a call of by some workers' Unions. 2. The petitioner claims to be a freelance journalist. In the writ petition, it is stated that the second and third respondents, being Central Trade Union (CITU) and All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), as also 34 other Unions are negotiating settlement of disputes with regard to wages and pension payable to the Transport Corporation employees of the State of Tamil Nadu. 3. In the writ petition, it is stated that the Government has agreed to 2.44% increase, whereas Workers' Unions are demanding 2.57% increase. The difference is only 0.13%. However, without prior intimation or information, at about 6.30 p.m. on 04.01.2018, the Transport Corporation workers announced Flash Strike leaving thousands of commuters stranded. The drivers, it is alleged, parked their buses along roads in a haphazard manner affecting movement of other vehicles and causing traffic snarls. In some areas, passengers were forced to get-off the buses midway. In some parts of the city, passengers blocked the road protesting against the frequency of buses, which also obstructed traffic. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that pay revision of Government employees takes place once in 10 years. The last pay revision covered the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2016. In case of other public sector undertakings controlled by the State of Tamil Nadu, pay revision takes place once in four years, but in the case of the Transport Undertaking of the State of Tamil Nadu, wage revision takes place once in three years. There were earlier settlements, which were effective for three years from 01.09.2007, 01.09.2010 and 01.09.2013 respectively. The settlement, which took place with effect from 01.09.2013 was in force till 31.08.2016. 5. There were earlier settlements, which were effective for three years from 01.09.2007, 01.09.2010 and 01.09.2013 respectively. The settlement, which took place with effect from 01.09.2013 was in force till 31.08.2016. 5. Learned Advocate General submits that wage settlement talks are going on and 11 to 12 sittings have been held. A settlement has also been signed by 32 Unions on 04.01.2018. However, 14 Unions refused to sign the settlement. 6. The learned Advocate General submits that the benefit given to drivers varies from Rs.2,684/- to Rs.10,332/- per month, depending on the length of services. In case of conductors, the increase varies from Rs.2,706/- to Rs.11,361/- per month, in case of technical staff, the increase varies from Rs.2,531/- to Rs.11,949/- per month and in case of administrative staff, between Rs.2,531/- and Rs.12,566/- per month, depending on the length of service. 7. The settlement talks also finalised increase of the scale of pay from Rs.6,900/- to Rs.17,700/- for new entrants as drivers by merger of grade and similarly for all other categories using a specified factor. For employees who entered service after 2013 and upto 2016, it was decided to give a special increment of 3%. This would benefit 32,000 employees. The average expenditure to the Government would be Rs.24 crores per annum. It is stated that this has been the highest increase compared to previous settlements. 8. The Transport Corporation workers provide essential public utility services. There can be no doubt that all employees are entitled to legitimately agitate their grievances. However, strike calls on issues such as this to press nominal demands of about Rs.600/- per month or so cannot be countenanced. The State is bound to protect the right of free movement of citizens. The rights are ensured by the State through a machinery of functionaries including the Transport Corporation workers. Moreover, innumerable office-goers, students and other service providers avail public transport to attend to their duties. Disruption of transport services would affect students, as also other forms of services. Recourse to lightning strikes and/or flash strikes without notice leads to the consequence of denying the citizens of their right to free movement and is clearly illegal and against public interest. 9. There will be an interim order restraining the Transport Corporation workers and specially, the drivers and conductors, from taking recourse to strike. The striking worker shall forthwith report for duty. 9. There will be an interim order restraining the Transport Corporation workers and specially, the drivers and conductors, from taking recourse to strike. The striking worker shall forthwith report for duty. Any worker refraining from attending to work and/or performing duty shall do so at his own risk of the consequences thereof including termination of their services and/or penalization for gross contempt of this Court. 10. Issue notice to respondents 2 and 3. Private notice is permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to implead the other Unions, after serving notice on them. Let the matter be listed on 08.01.2018." 2. Subsequently, while declining to vacate the interim order, the Hon'ble First Bench, on 08.01.2018, has passed the following order: "The writ petition was filed by way of a public interest litigation seeking appropriate orders for restoration of public transport services, which had, according to the writ petitioner, been disrupted by reason of flash strike by Transport Corporation workers, pursuant to a call of some Workers' Unions. 2. Considering the plight of the ordinary people who are constrained to use public transport, and, therefore, really affected by recourse to lightning strikes and/or flash strikes, we passed an interim order restraining the Transport Corporation workers and especially, the drivers and conductors, from taking recourse to strike. By taking recourse to strike, we meant taking recourse to lightning strike, without adequate notice. 3. Our attention has been drawn by the Unions to other issues pending between the Unions and the Transport Corporations/the Government, including the issue of non-release of provident fund deducted from the wages of the workers, as also other dues for which deductions were made from the salaries/wages of the workers. 4. We are informed that the issue of withholding of provident fund is being monitored by a specially constituted Division Bench of S.Manikumar and M.Govindaraj, JJ. 5. We deem it appropriate to transfer this public interest litigation also to the aforesaid Division Bench with a request to decide the matter expeditiously. All connected applications including applications for vacating the interim order be placed before the aforesaid Bench. 6. As of now, we are not inclined to vacate the interim order restraining the Transport Corporation workers from taking recourse to strike, particularly, the drivers and conductors, considering the predicament of the general public, who are constrained to use transport services. 7. All connected applications including applications for vacating the interim order be placed before the aforesaid Bench. 6. As of now, we are not inclined to vacate the interim order restraining the Transport Corporation workers from taking recourse to strike, particularly, the drivers and conductors, considering the predicament of the general public, who are constrained to use transport services. 7. Transport services provided by the Corporations are used by the ordinary people and not people belonging to upper echelons of society. Public transport services provided by these Corporations do not affect top Government officials or top officials of Corporations or others responsible for decisions, but very ordinary people who have little option but to use public transport. Many people using public transport are wage earners, who lose wages for the day if they are unable to report for duty. Students and others belonging to the ordinary families suffer. 8. There can be no doubt that the rights of workers are also of paramount importance and they cannot be denied their legitimate entitlements. However, recourse to sudden strike is not the solution. Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides as follows: 22. Prohibition of strikes and lock- outs.- (1) No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract-- (a) without giving to the employer notice of strike, as herein- after provided, within six weeks before striking; or (b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or (c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or (d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. (2) No employer carrying on any public utility service shall lock- out any of his workmen-- (a) without giving them notice of lock- out as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before locking out; or (b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or (c) before the expiry of the date of lock- out specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or (d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. (3) The notice of lock- out or strike under this section shall not be necessary where there is already in existence a strike or, as the case may be, lock- out in the public utility service, but the employer shall send intimation of such lock- out or strike on the day on which it is declared, to such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government either generally or for a particular area or for a particular class of public utility services. (4) The notice of strike referred to in sub- section (1) shall be given by such number of persons to such person or persons and in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) The notice of lock- out referred to in sub- section (2) shall be given in such manner as may be prescribed. (6) If on any day an employer receives from any persons employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub- section (1) or gives to any persons employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub- section (2), he shall within five days thereof report to the appropriate Government or to such authority as that Government may prescribe the number of such notices received or given on that day. Prima facie, it appears to us, that the strike is in contravention of clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22. 9. We modify the interim order dated 05.01.2018 only to the extent that no worker shall be terminated without leave of this Court. 10. We expect that the State authorities will immediately release the outstanding provident fund and other dues of the workers, particularly, where deductions have been made from the wages/salaries of the workers. 11. Let this writ petition along with all connected applications stand transferred to the specially constituted Division Bench of S.Manikumar and M.Govindaraj, JJ. 12. Needless to mention that all further orders as may be necessary may be passed in the writ petition including modification of the interim order, if deemed necessary. 4. Mrs. 11. Let this writ petition along with all connected applications stand transferred to the specially constituted Division Bench of S.Manikumar and M.Govindaraj, JJ. 12. Needless to mention that all further orders as may be necessary may be passed in the writ petition including modification of the interim order, if deemed necessary. 4. Mrs. V.Preetha, Advocate, as party-in-person, has filed W.P.No.414 of 2018, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and allow the representation, dated 05.01.2018 to take disciplinary action and to suspend or issue charge under the service rules or both and to register case against those staffs who had thrown out the public in half the way in travelling without completing their assignment of the consignment, as well as to deploy drivers to all the buses from the employment exchange seniority list and waiting list to run the buses and to give remedy to the public as well as to fix and pay compensation amount to all the public when they pray for that through their tickets and bus passes issued to them by their respective bus conductors without hesitation which may be deducted from the salary of each bus drivers and conductors who have thrown out their passengers without completing their consignment. 5. Mr.S.Santhosh Kumar, Advocate, has filed W.P.No.415 of 2018, praying for issuance of a writ of Declaration, to declare the strike called for by the respondents 5 to 14 from 04.01.2018 as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate legal actions against the participants in the illegal strike announced by the respondents 5 to 14 under the essential services maintenance Act (ESMA) or any other appropriate laws, rules, regulations etc. 6. Mr.S.Suresh, Advocate, has filed W.P.No.478 of 2018, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, for bearing the respondents 1 to 3 from treating the period of strike by the employees of the respondents 5 to 14 and other employees, as leave and consequently, restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from disbursing the salary to the members of respondents 5 to 14 and other workers, who are participating in the illegal strike from 04.01.2018, under the principle, "No work, No Pay". 7. 7. W.M.P.Nos.555, 580, 614, 781 and 893 of 2018 in W.P.No.330 of 2018, have been filed by the respective parties, viz., Mr.Varaaki (W.M.P.No.555 of 2018); The General Secretary and President, Labour Progressive Federation and General Secretary, State Transport Corporation's Employees Progressive Unions Federation (W.M.P.No.580 of 2018); The State Executive President, Tamil Nadu Government Transport Staff Federation (W.M.P.No.614 of 2018); The State Federation President, Arivar Ambedkar Pokuvarathu Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani (W.M.P.No.781 of 2018); and The Vice President, Bharathiya Pokkuvarathu Thozhil Sangha Peravai (BMS), to implead them as "party respondents" and having satisfied with the reasons, stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the above petitions, all the petitions are ordered, and Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments, both in the writ petition, as well as in the miscellaneous petitions. 8. Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr.Ajay Ghose, appearing for 2nd respondent/CITU in W.P.No.330 of 2018, made elaborate submissions. Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.K.Sudalaikannu and Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel, appearing for the respective Unions, made submissions. We have also heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General. 9. Upon perusal of the affidavits filed by the parties, we are prima facie of the view that the core issues of dispute are, (i) application of multiplying factor of 2.44 instead of 2.57; (ii) the date from which the settlement of wages, should be applied; (iii) the manner, in which the settlement, is arrived at; (iv) whether there was unfair labour practice; and (v) whether collective bargaining was not allowed to be exercised, as per the statute. 10. In W.M.P. No.801 of 2018 in W.P. No.330/2018, Mr.Shanmugam, General Secretary of the Labour Progressive Federation, Chennai, has sought for a prayer directing the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Chennai, respondent No.2 therein, to refer the issue of the legality of the alleged settlement dated 04.01.2018 for adjudication, as well as, the issue of difference in multiplying factor of 0.13, and the claim for wages, for the workers during the strike period to be decided by an Arbitrator, preferably a Retired Hon'ble Judge of this High Court. He has also prayed for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai from releasing funds deducted from the monthly wages for any other purpose other than remitting the same for which they were deducted. 11. He has also prayed for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai from releasing funds deducted from the monthly wages for any other purpose other than remitting the same for which they were deducted. 11. Considering the larger interest of children, students, workers, patients, office goers, traders, small time vendors, poor and middle class, put to suffering and hardship, due to the strike, by the conductors and drivers of the Transport Corporations, whatever be, the dispute with their employers and though we heard the arguments of the above learned senior counsel and others, we persuaded the learned counsel appearing for all parties that pending disposal of the writ petitions, as an interim measure, there should be industrial peace and that the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the public and therefore, observed that both parties should agree to some terms. 12. At this juncture, we also expressed our concern, to the public, larger in number, than the employees, and also appealed to the employees, to take a positive decision, touching upon their conscience, as to whether, they should continue to strike or resume work. Public is awaiting resumption of public utility services, to go to their native and other places. We also expressed that our culture and traditional festival is nearing. Taking note of the sentiments expressed by this court that whatever be the dispute between the parties, on the wage revision or other demands, public interest should prevail, respondent unions, have filed a Memorandum dated 11.01.2018, as hereunder: "A. That this Court nominate an arbitrator for expeditious resolution of the dispute for which the Government should issue a Government Order and publish the agreement in accordance with Section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The state Transport Corporation and the unions herein should sign the arbitration agreement as required under Section 10(A) of the industrial disputes act. B. The issues to be refer for adjudication are: 1. The difference of 0.13 multiplying factor and charter of demands of 22.11.2016 given by the unions. 2. The wages for the strike period. This Court may kindly express its fond hope that the Government and the unions would bilaterally negotiate and resolve the differences notwithstanding the issue being referred for arbitration. The difference of 0.13 multiplying factor and charter of demands of 22.11.2016 given by the unions. 2. The wages for the strike period. This Court may kindly express its fond hope that the Government and the unions would bilaterally negotiate and resolve the differences notwithstanding the issue being referred for arbitration. C. The Government should cease its practice of not remitting the deducted amounts from workers wages into the respective accounts both statutory and non statutory accounts, with effect from 01.01.2018 so as to prevent further accumulation of such dues contrary to the provision of law. D. Pending arbitration the workers' wages be released for strike period subject to the adjustment against the eventual award. E. The Government in principle should drop the criminal cases filed against the transport workers in connection with the strike and also revoke the suspensions and departmental proceedings initiated in connection with the strike. F. It is respectfully submitted that the unions as desired by this Court and in due deference to the observation made by this Honourable Court have resolved to restore status quo ante as obtaining prior to 04.01.2018, which the Government also in principle accept." 13. On the above Memorandum, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, submitted that he would get instructions from the Government. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Chennai, has filed an affidavit dated 11.01.2018, wherein, the proposal contained in the Memorandum of Labour Progressive Federation represented by General Secretary, Chennai, has been accepted, in principal, as hereunder: "2. Government indicates its willingness for the Hon'ble Court to nominate an arbitrator for resolving the issue raised by the petitioner of referring the differences of 0.13 multiplying factor which according to Government has already been taken into consideration due to the 5.5% increase in the wage settlement in 2013 and which according to the petitioner is disputed. 3. The current settlement agreement of 2.44 as concluded on 04.01.2018 is being disputed by the unsigned parties of whom the petitioner is one. The arbitration referred to shall deal with the multiplying factor of 2.44 or 2.57 as disputed and this shall only be the subject matter of arbitration. 4. It is also agreed that the practice of remitting the deducted amounts from the workers wages into respective accounts of statutory and non-statutory, shall not be delayed from this month. 9. The arbitration referred to shall deal with the multiplying factor of 2.44 or 2.57 as disputed and this shall only be the subject matter of arbitration. 4. It is also agreed that the practice of remitting the deducted amounts from the workers wages into respective accounts of statutory and non-statutory, shall not be delayed from this month. 9. Acceptance by the Government, of the proposals submitted by the workmen as mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 is conditional upon the workmen resuming full duties by the evening of 11.01.2018." 14. Insofar as the demand of the Unions, to consider the proposal dated 22.11.2016, to be included in the Reference; wages to be released for the strike period subject to adjustment against the eventual award; dropping of criminal cases filed against the transport workers, in connection with the strike; to revoke the suspension and departmental proceedings, initiated in connection with the strike; the above have not been accepted by the Government, for the reasons contained in the affidavit, filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 15. Arguments were also advanced by Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel that yesterday, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, submitted that the Government is willing to face the adjudication, as to the correctness and validity of the alleged settlement dated 04.01.2018 before any forum and therefore, unless and until the legality of the above, is also included as one of the terms of reference, the difference of 0.13, multiplying factor, cannot be gone into. It is also the further contention of the senior advocate that apart from 0.13 multiplying factor, other demands, which form part of the memorandum, filed before this court dated 22.11.2016, shall be part of the arbitral reference. 16. Though withdrawal of criminal cases and release of wages for the strike period, subject to the adjustment against the eventual award yet to be passed in the Arbitral proceedings, were included in the memorandum dated 11.01.2018, Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Labour Progressive Federation, has not pressed the same. He suggested that among the following three Hon'ble Retired Judges, any one of them, can be appointed as the Arbitrator, and this court may fix a time limit, for passing the award, in terms of Section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Three Hon'ble Judges, suggested by Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Advocate, are (i) Hon'ble Mr. He suggested that among the following three Hon'ble Retired Judges, any one of them, can be appointed as the Arbitrator, and this court may fix a time limit, for passing the award, in terms of Section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Three Hon'ble Judges, suggested by Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Advocate, are (i) Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir; (ii) Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N.Basha, Former Judge, High Court of Madras; and (iii) Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Shanmugam, Former Judge, High Court of Madras. 17. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for CITU, submitted that all the demands apart from the difference in the multiplier, may also be referred to the Arbitrator. He also submitted that criminal cases should be withdrawn and wages, during the strike period, should be paid. He also reiterated that illegality should also be one of the terms of reference. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad suggested Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, Former Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, to be the Arbitrator. 18. Responding to the above submissions, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, submitted that if all the demands, as prayed for, are referred to the Arbitrator, if any, to be appointed, the settlement already arrived at, will become redundant. According to him, procedure contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was duly followed, while arriving at the settlement, dated 04.01.2018 and therefore, all the demands need not be referred. He further submitted that public properties have been damaged and therefore, criminal cases have been registered against the alleged perpetrators. Withdrawal of criminal cases should not be a premium, for the offences committed. Payment of wages for the strike period, should not be subject for reference. Learned Advocate General suggested the name of Hon'ble Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as the Arbitrator. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 19. Right from the inception of the case, perceiving the difficulties and hardship faced by children, students, workers, patients, office goers, traders, small time vendors, poor and middle class, we expressed our concern that the settlement of disputes can be done, in the manner known to law, and the warring parties should consider the interests of the above, and keep aside the difference, we also indicated the traditional festival, Pongal. We have also taken note of the fact that nearly 11,000 buses were scheduled to be operated, as Special Service buses, during Pongal festival. At one stage, as stated supra, we appealed to the Transport Corporation Employees that a decision, as per their conscience to be taken, no matter what is the dispute to be settled with the employers. We also illustrated a case that if there is a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife, the innocent child should not suffer and at least, for the interest of the child, parties should give up some demands, inter-se, as an interim measure. 20. In W.M.P. No.801 of 2018 in W.P. No.330/2018, Mr.Shanmugam, General Secretary of Labour Progressive Federation at paragraph No.8, has averred, as hereunder: "8. He submit that according to the Government, it has offered 2.44 as the multiplying factor for wage increase. It is the workers' aspiration that multiplying factor be 2.57, as they are already under tremendous financial strain. We respectfully submit that the difference of 0.10 may be referred for arbitration before an Arbitrator that this Court may be pleased to appoint and the learned Arbitrator can then go into the justifiability of the demand of the differencein the multiplying factor to an extent of 013 between Government and the workers. It is further submitted that the learned Arbitrator can also examine the legality of the alleged settlement entered by the Government Transport Corporations at the instance of the Minister for Transport and further the usual wages for the workers during the strike period and related to issues. 21. Today, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, though five demands have been set out in the memorandum dated 11.01.2018, filed by the Trade Unions, Government have come up, to agree for three demands, as stated supra, subject to the condition that the Transport Corporation employees, resume work from 11.01.2018 evening. 22. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the Unions, requested this court to refer, the correctness and validity of the alleged settlement dated 04.01.2018, as one of the terms of reference, we are not inclined to accept the said request. 23. After considering the rival submissions, in the interest of children, students, workers, patients, office goers, traders, small time vendors, poor and middle class people, who represent the larger section of commuters, we direct the Transport Corporation employees, to resume work immediately. 24. 23. After considering the rival submissions, in the interest of children, students, workers, patients, office goers, traders, small time vendors, poor and middle class people, who represent the larger section of commuters, we direct the Transport Corporation employees, to resume work immediately. 24. We deem it fit to appoint Hon'ble Mr.E.Padmanabhan (Retired Judge of this Court) as Arbitrator, to adjudicate (i) difference of 0.13 multiplying factor; and (ii) date from which it should be applied 25. Learned Arbitrator is requested to proceed in terms of Section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules framed there under. 26. Government is directed to act as per Section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 27. Learned Arbitrator is requested to submit a report to this court, within one month from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 10(3A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 28. Appropriate remuneration, arrangements for the conduct of Arbitration proceedings be done, at the expense of the Government. 29. We fervently and sincerely hope that the customs, tradition and culture of Tamil Nadu, should be preserved and conserved, by all concerned, whatever be the difference. We wish the Transport Corporation employees, resume duty. 30. Before parting with, we wish to state that by resuming work, normalcy is restored. By continuing strike, it is otherwise. "Where there is a Will there is a way" 31. The above directions are passed as an interim measure subject to the outcome of the Arbitration and orders to be passed in the writ petitions.