High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 04.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017andW.M.P.(MD) No.1649 of 2017Spinning Mill Workers Sangamrep.by its SecretaryThiruchendur Co-operative Spinning Mill Branch160, Jeeva IllamMill Road, Nazereth-628 617 ... Petitioner-vs-1.The Management Thiruchandur Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd., Nazereth-628 6172.The Official Liquidator Thiruchandur Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd., Nazereth-628 6173.Assistant Director Handlooms and Textiles Department Tirunelveli4.The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tirunelveli... Respondents____________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the award passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, on 15.06.2016, in I.D.No.66 of 2005 and to quash the same insofar as it has rejected the claim of the petitioner for their backwages from the date of stopping of the production of the respondent – Mill from 31.07.2003 to the date of actual appointment of the Liquidator on 18.12.2012 and thereby suitably modifying the award and further direct the respondents one to three to pay the dues as per Ex.25 (computation by Union submitted in Labour Court) including full backwages from 31.07.2003 till 18.12.2012 instead of notional compensation as fixed in para 17 of the award with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of amount became due.For Petitioner:Mr.A.Ajith GeethanFor Respondents:Mr.S.ShanmugavelAdditional Government Pleader for R1 & R3Mr.C.Karthikeyan for R2R4 – Court____________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017O R D E RThe petitioner – Sangam has approached this Court by questioning the Award, dated 15.06.2016, passed in I.D.No.66 of 2005, on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, to the extent of granting a lump sum compensation instead of granting the relief in terms of Sub-Section 6 to Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act, 1947”).2. Through the impugned Award, the closure of the respondent – Mill was found to be not in accordance with law. Because of the closure of the respondent – Mill, the members of the petitioner – Sangam were deprived of their employment. As the very closure of the respondent – Mill itself was found to be not in accordance with law, the consequential retrenchment of the members of the petitioner – Sangam were also declared as illegal by the Labour Court.3. As against the said finding of the learned Labour Court declaring the closure of the respondent – Mill as illegal, there is no challenge to the impugned Award by the respondent – Mill.____________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 20174. However, Mr.C.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Mill, contended that the finding of the learned Labour Court declaring the closure of the respondent – Mill as illegal cannot be sustained as there was no closure and it is only pursuant to the orders passed by the Government by issuing G.O.(Ms) No.39, dated 13.06.2003, the respondent – Mill was subjected to liquidation proceedings and finally, the same was liquidated in the year 2012. Thus, it is contended that the question of closure of the respondent – Mill does not arise and the respondent – Mill has only stopped its functioning with effect from 31.07.2003. Thus, it is his contention that the finding of the Labour Court declaring the closure of the respondent – Mill or stopping its functioning from 31.07.2003 as illegal is not in accordance with law and therefore, the petitioner – Sangam is not entitled for the benefits in terms of Sub-Section 6 of Section 25-O of the Act, 1947.5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side.6. The learned Labour Court, under the impugned Award, has categorically recorded a finding that the closure of the respondent – Mill as illegal. However, the respondent – Mill has not chosen to question the said ____________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017Award for the reasons best known. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr.C.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Mill that the respondents have accepted the impugned Award and therefore, they have not chosen to question the same. If that be so, once the respondent – Mill accepted the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court holding that the closure of the respondent – Mill is not in accordance with law and consequently declaring the retrenchment of the members of the petitioner – Sangam as illegal, it is not open for the respondent – Mill to contend that the said finding of the learned Labour Court is not in accordance with law or otherwise. Hence, the said conclusion of the Labour Court declaring the closure of the respondent – Mill as illegal needs no interference by this Court, especially, in the absence of any challenge to the said conclusion.7. Then, the only question that would arise for consideration is whether the learned Labour Court is right in awarding compensation in terms of the Annexure to the impugned Award instead of giving the members of the petitioner – Association the relief in terms of the provisions of Sub-Section 6 to Section 25-O of the Act, 1947.____________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 20178. A perusal of the impugned Award does not disclose any reason as to why the learned Labour Court, having declared the closure of the respondent – Mill as the one not in accordance with law, restrained itself from granting the consequential relief in terms of Sub-Section 6 to Section 25-O of the Act, 1947 and only awarded a lump sum compensation. In the absence of any reason assigned by the Labour Court in awarding only a lump sum compensation, instead of granting the consequential relief in terms of Sub-Section 6 to Section 25-O of the Act, 1947, the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court cannot be sustained. Having arrived at such conclusion, this Court cannot adjudicate the entitlement of the members of the petitioner – Sangam for awarding of benefits in terms of Sub-Section 6 of Section 25-O of the Act, 1947. It is for the learned Labour Court to decide the said aspect basing upon various factual aspects and after affording an opportunity to both the parties.9. In the light of the above, the impugned Award to the extent of granting a lump sum amount in terms of the Annexure granted under the Relief Nos.4 & 5 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the impugned Award passed by the learned Labour Court is hereby quashed to that extent and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court, Tirunelveli, to decide as ____________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017to the benefits for which the members of the petitioner – Sangam are entitled to in terms of Sub-Section 6 to Section 25-O of the Act, 1947, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. The learned Labour Court is further directed to decide the matter, as directed above, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.03.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / No krkTo:1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli.2.The Management, Thiruchandur Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd., Nazereth-628 617.3.The Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles Department, Tirunelveli.____________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.krkW.P.(MD) No.1996 of 2017andW.M.P.(MD) No.1649 of 201704.03.2025____________Page 8 of 8