T.Raja, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/Union, seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the third respondent to ensure the compliance of the conditions mentioned in Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in particular, in the case of the workers, namely, Kovilpillai, Chenthil Kumar, Aravinda Kumar, Jithish Kumar, Kannan, Shivaraj, D.Sasikumar and Selvakumar, belonging to the third respondent against whom enquiry have been concluded without affording assistance of co-employee.
(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition, are as follows:- The third respondent / MRF Limited is a leading tyre manufacturer, having a plant at Thiruvottiyur and it has several manufacturing factories in several other localities in India. About 1,100 workers are employed at Thiruvottiyur Plant, all of whom are the members of the petitioner-Union. The petitioner-Union and the third respondent-Management had entered into long term wage settlements from time to time and eleven settlements had been entered into, since the inception of the third respondent. However, the wages of the workers in the third respondent factory is far less, than the wages of the workers in the nearby factories. On the expiry of the previous wage settlement, on 06.07.2013 charter of demands were raised and upon failure of bilateral negotiations, the petitioner-Union's wage dispute was heard as I.D.No.8 of 2014 and the third respondent Management was heard as I.D.No.33 of 2015 and the said two I.Ds were heard together before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.
(3.) Subsequently thereto, the third respondent indulged in arbitrary wage cuts, unilateral alternations of conditions of service and large scale dismissals. Since the reference of the Industrial Disputes, 28 workers have been dismissed for whom the third respondent-Management has filed Approval Applications. Further, charge sheets were issued for several workers. An enquiry was conducted, without affording an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the petitioner-Union raised an Industrial Dispute against the enquiry, where the assistance of the co-employees was denied and about the interpretation of the Standing Orders, on 15.05.2017 bearing Reference No.399/2017 and the same is pending before the second respondent, wherein the petitioner-Union has sought for an effective assistance by a co-worker, as the co-worker is prevented from assisting the charge sheeted worker. However, the third respondent-Management, though a party to the conciliation proceedings, wanted to dismiss the workers, without prior permission of the Conciliation Officer, so that immediate victimization can be done and the Petitioner-Union can be subjected to pressure from the workers to settle the third respondent-Management for fear of further victimization. Hence, this writ petition.;