High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015J.P.Tobacco Products (P) Ltd.,4A, Ambasamudram Road,Kulavanigarpuram,Melapalayam Post,Tirunelveli District – 627 005.Repd. by its Power Agent,Bhailal Bhai Purshotham Das PatelBoth residing at same place... Petitioner in W.P.No.39859 of 2015Ceejay Tobacco Ltd.,35-36, Nethaji Road,Melapalayam,Tirunelveli District – 627 005,Tamil Nadu,Repd. by its Power Agent,Santhoshbhai Navinbhai Patel,Both residing at same place... Petitioner in W.P.No.39860 of 2015Vs.1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.3.Inspector of Labour, Office of the Inspector of Labour Office Building, C-91, 2nd Cross Street,Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015 Maharajan Nagar, Tirunelveli.4.Tamil Nadu Beedi Manufacturers Association, Rep. by its President, A.Mohammad Ashraf, 2-14-A Detail Line Jameelabad Colony, Detail Line, Vellore – 632 001.5.Madras Provincial Beedi Factory Owners Association, Rep. by its President, Mr.Jamaal Mohammad Ibrahim, 9, Mylai Periathambi Street, Chennai – 600 001.6.South Tamil Nadu Beedi Manufactures Association, Rep. by its President, Mr.V.T.S.Abdul Hameed, No.105, Nethaji road, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli – 627 005.7.South Tamil Nadu Beedi Manufactures Association, Rep. by its Manager, Mr.Abdul Ajeez, No.105, Nethaji Road, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli – 627 005.8.Nellai District Beedi Manufactures Association, Rep. by its Manager, Mr.Masthan, House of Syed, South Bypass Road, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli – 627 003.9.Beedi Manufactures Sangam, Rep. by its Manager, Mr.Abdul Kafoor, No.46, South Mount Road, Tirunelveli – 627 006.10.Anna Thozhilsanga Peravai (ATP), Rep. by its District Secretary, No.4, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.11.Centre of Indian Trade Union (CITU), Rep. by its Honorary President – M.Rajangam,Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015 25A, Rajendra Nagar, 1st Street, Tirunelveli – 627 002.12.Labour Progressive Force (LPF), Rep. by its General Secretary, Opp. to Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli – 627 003.13.All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Rep. by its General Secretary, Sindupoonthurai, Tirunelveli – 627 001.14.Indian National Trade Union Congress, Rep. by its General Secretary, Mr.R.R.Vinayagamurthy, Main Road, S.Kodiyur, Jolarpet, Vellore District.15.Federation of Independent Trade Union, Rep. by its State President, C/o.Jolarpet, Ikkya Beedi Thozhilalar Sangam, Jolarpet, Vellore District.16.T.M.T.S.B., Rep. by its General Secretary, No.6, Cross Street, Tirunelveli – 627 001.17.S.T.U, Rep. by its General Secretary, No.17/28, Old Road, Tirunelveli – 627 001.18.Tamil Nadu District Congress Beedi Thozhilalar Nala Sangam, Rep. by its District Secretary, Gandhi Road, Tirunelveli – 627 001.19.Thentamizhaga Beedi Workers Nala Sangam, Rep. by its President, No.16-1-137, Amman Sannithi Street,Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015 Sivagurunathapuram, Surandai – 627 859, Tirunelveli District.... Respondents in both WPsPrayer in both WPs : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from implementing or applying the terms of Settlement entered into between certain managements and worker unions under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 10.8.2015 in the presence of the 2nd respondent with regard to revision of basic wages in so far as the petitioner which is not a party/signatory to the said settlement is concerned.For Petitioner(in both WPs):Mr.P.Raghunathanfor M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.For Respondents(in both WPs):Mr.K.SurendranAdditional Government Pleader [R1 to R3]No appearance [R4, R6 to R9, R12 to R14 & R19]Not Ready Notice [R5, R10 & R16 to R18]Mr.V.Ajoy Khose [R11]Mr.K.Thiruvalluvan [R15]*****COMMON ORDERSeeking to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from implementing the settlement entered between management and workers' union u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the I.D. Act') dated 10.08.2015, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners.2. The petitioners are involved in beedi manufacturing. According Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015to the petitioners, it employs about 3,935 workers. The management has recognized the worker's union called Thenthamizhaga Beedi Thozhilalar Sangam, which espouses the cause of its workers. According to the petitioners, a settlement u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act was reached between certain managements and the worker's union on 10.08.2015, whereby an agreement was reached between the parties, enhancing the basic wages payable to the workers by Rs.12/- for 1000 beedis from 15.08.2015 onwards. The settlement also stated that it would be valid for 3 years and 9 months, up to 14.05.2019. Contending that the management was not a part of the settlement talks, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from implementing the said settlement to the petitioners' management.3. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is stated that the practice of notifying settlement wages as the minimum wages was in vogue as per the decision taken in the fifth meeting of the Minimum Wages (State) Advisory Board held on 05.01.1984. The said respondents have taken a strong stand that though the petitioners took part in all the conciliation talks held on various dates in Chennai, had purposefully not chosen to participate in the final Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015conciliation talks held at Chennai on 10.08.2015.4. The petitioners have not chosen to file a rejoinder to rebut the said contentions.5. The respondents 1 and 2 have stated in their counter affidavit that the copy of the settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act was communicated to the petitioners, as it was sent to all other Beedi manufacturers. It is because the petitioners were signatory to the final settlement, and it cannot be stated that they are not borne by the terms and conditions of the said settlement. The issue of wage increment was a long-pending issue, and the same was addressed by way of this 12(3) settlement. The respondents 1 and 2, therefore, submitted that these writ petitions are devoid of merit, and the same has to be dismissed.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the workers' union recognized by the petitioners' management was not a signatory to the 12(3) settlement, and therefore, it is not binding on them. He further submitted that it was only an unilateral decision arrived at by some other managements of beedi manufacturers and certain workers unions, and Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015therefore, it cannot be thrust upon the petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 should be directed not to implement the said settlement on the petitioners.7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioners have actively participated during the earlier rounds of conciliation talks. When the petitioners got a wind that wages were to be increased, they step back and did not attend the final conciliation talks. The petitioners have deliberately stayed away from the final talks so that they could defeat the rightful rights of the workers for increased wages. Therefore, he submitted that the writ petitions should be rejected.8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and as stated in the counter affidavit, the petitioners have participated in the earlier rounds of conciliation. For the reasons best known to them, they did not come to the negotiating Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015table for the final rounds of talks. The petitioners have not stated anywhere, either in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions or during the arguments, as to why they did not participate in the final rounds of discussion. It is not as though the petitioners were taken by surprise, all of a sudden, and they were sent a copy of the 12(3) settlement. The petitioners were very much aware of the ongoing talks between the workers' union and the company regarding wage increase for the beedi workers. Moreover, the wage increase is only a pittance. The agreement reached is for an increase of Rs.12/- for 1000 beedis. This Court does not find the said increase to be huge. Secondly, the said settlement was valid for only three years and nine months. Now, we are in the year 2025. It is not known whether further talks were held between the parties for increasing the wages of the beedis workers. The attempt of the petitioners, as borne on records, is only to defeat the rightful claims of the beedi workers. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer sought by the petitioners.10. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are directed to implement the 12(3) settlement without any further delay Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015and pay the wage increase as per the 12(3) settlement within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioners shall pay the workers increased wages at 9% interest per annum till the date of realization. Further, the petitioners are at liberty to workout the remedy in the manner known to law, if law permits. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.18.03.2025Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes / NospTo1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.3.The Inspector of Labour, Office of the Inspector of Labour Office Building, C-91, 2nd Cross Street, Maharajan Nagar, Tirunelveli.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 2015M.DHANDAPANI, J.spW.P.Nos.39859 & 39860 of 201518.03.2025Page No.10 of 10