TAMIL NADU JOINT ACTION COUNCIL AND TEXTILE TRADE UNION B AND C MILLS STAFF UNION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a G.O.Ms. No. 1395 dated 15-7-1985 the Government of Tamil Nadu referred for adjudication by an Industrial Tribunal and industrial dispute between "the workmen South India Mills Association, National Textile Corporation and Co-operative Spinning Mills" in respect of matters mentioned in the Annexure to the order. The terms of reference were set out as follows:

(2.) Later, another order was issued specifying the individual mills in respect of whose workmen and management the dispute had been referred for adjudication. Several hundred mills were specified in the order but a few who were parties to the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Conciliation Officer and who were also members of the South India Mills Association were left out. Complaining that some of the mills had been arbitrarily left out, the Tamil Nadu Joint Action Council of Textile Trade Unions has filed the present Writ Petition. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition more mills were included in the reference but some continued to be left out. The mills who have been left out have been mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 1111 dated 13-6-1986. There are 12 such Mills mentioned in the G.O. In regard to Katteri Mills the G.O. recites that the name of the Mill has since been changed and the Mill has been included in the reference under its new name. No question therefore arises in respect of Katteri Mills. In respect of SSM Processing unit, the G.O. recites that it is a processing unit and therefore cannot be classified as "Textile Industry with manufacturing process". The case of SSM Processing unit is distinguished from the case of United Bleachers Limited processing unit on the ground that the latter was a member of South India Mills Association and had always been following the Textile Industry-wise pattern in the matter of wage revision. There appears to be sufficient justification for not -including SSM Processing unit in the reference. In regard to the 10 other Mills mentioned in the G.O. it is recited that there are settlements in force between the managements and the workmen of these mills. We think, in view of the fact that the dispute was an industry-wise dispute and not establishment-wise dispute, these 10 Mills should have also been included in the reference and it should have been left to the managements of the Mills to object to the reference before the Tribunal. These 10 Mills are members of South India Mills Association. They were parties to the conciliation proceeding. The terms of reference as already mentioned by us show that the dispute was industry-wise and not establishment-wise. The Government should not have at this stage taken on itself the task of deciding whether these Mills should or should not be governed by the general adjudication affecting all the workmen in the industry. In the circumstances, we direct the State of Tamil Nadu to forthwith include these 10 Mills enumerated as numbers 3 to 12 by G.O.Ms. No. 1111 dated 13-6-1986 in the reference to the Tribunal made by G.O.Ms. No. 1395 dated 15-7-1985. The concerned managements may object to the reference if so advised.

(3.) The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.