IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:22-10-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1771 of 2001 Salem Managar Mavatta ullatchithurai Oozhiar Sangam (Regd.No.922/SLM) rep. its General Secretary, No.6, Thirukumaran Building, Four Roads, Salem 636 009. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem 636 001. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the 135 workmen whose names are given in the Annexure to this Petition with backwages and attendant benefits as per the Settlement, dated 30.6.1999 and award costs. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader (R1 & R2) Mr.G.Sankaran (R3) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate the 135 members of the petitioner Sangam, whose names are furnished in the Annexure forming part of the writ petition. 3. It has been stated that all the 135 members of the petitioner Sangam, are workmen, who had been recruited by the third respondent Corporation, on consolidated wages of Rs.1000/- per month, in the month of September, 1996. However, no appointment orders had been issued appointing them in service. Even though no formal orders have been issued, they have been working, continuously, from the dates of their engagement in service. While so, in the month of October, 1998, their services were orally terminated by the third respondent. Therefore, they had raised disputes, under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with regard to their non employment. 4. During the course of the conciliation proceedings, the third respondent had orally agreed to re-instate the workmen concerned. Based on the said agreement, the conciliation officer had passed an order, dated 30.6.99, advising the management of the third respondent Corporation, to reinstate the workmen concerned, as new entrants, on or before 31.7.99. However, since the workmen had demanded a written agreement from the management of the third respondent Corporation, a settlement was concluded between the management of the third respondent Corporation and the petitioner Sangam, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 30.6.99. According to the said agreement, the workmen ought to have been reinstated in service, as new entrants, on or before 31.7.99. However, since the third respondent Corporation had failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the settlement, several representations had been made to the third respondent to implement the said settlement concluded, on 30.6.99. Since no steps were taken by the management of the third respondent Corporation, to comply with the settlement, concluded under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Sangam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter filed on behalf of the third respondent Corporation, the allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the respondent Corporation had never recruited 700 workers, as alleged by the petitioner Sangam, nor have they been paid the consolidated wages of Rs.1000/- per month, as alleged by the petitioner. Only a few persons were paid Rs.1000/- and that too for a period of one or two months only. The third respondent, being a local body, has not made any commitment either oral or in writing, to engage the workmen. No notice was served on the third respondent to engage them, under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as claimed by the petitioner. It has also been stated that no promise was made by the third respondent to absorb the members of the petitioner Sangam. Further, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Conciliation Officer was not authorised to reinstate the persons before 31.7.99, as claimed by the petitioner. The third respondent cannot appoint Sanitary Workers without the prior sanction of the Government. Financial approval should also be obtained from the council of the City Municipal Corporation before such appointment is made. 6. It has been further stated that no settlement had been signed by the third respondent Corporation, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as stated by the petitioner. There is no statutory agreement between the third respondent Corporation and the petitioner Sangam, as claimed by the petitioner. The third respondent Corporation has not promised the members of the petitioner Sangam for employing them, either on a regular basis or on daily wages. They had not registered their names in the list of casual labourers maintained in the 60 Divisions of the Salem Corporation. Since the financial position of the third respondent Corporation is not satisfactory, no demand can be made as claimed by the petitioner Sangam. Since the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sangam had placed before this Court an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 4.9.2007, made in W.P.No.5456 of 2001, wherein it has been held that the challenge made by the Salem Municipal Corporation to the settlement concluded, under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 30.6.99, is misconceived. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent Corporation had submitted that a writ appeal had been preferred against the said order, dated 4.9.2007, before a Division Bench of this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once a settlement has been concluded, between the members of the petitioner Sangam and the management of the third respondent Corporation, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it would not be open to the third respondent to contest the same or dispute the validity of the said settlement. Since it was agreed that all the 135 members of the petitioner Sangam, whose names are furnished in the annexure to the writ petition, would be reinstated in service as new entrants on or before 31.7.99, the third respondent cannot, at this point of time, refuse to implement the settlement stating that no such agreement was made. Once the validity of the settlement has been upheld by this Court by its order, dated 4.9.2007, made in W.P.No.5456 of 2001, the third respondent Corporation cannot be allowed to neglect its responsibility of reinstating the members of the petitioner Sangam in service, as sanitary workers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sangam, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Sangam has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. Under normal circumstances, this Court, does not issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to implement a settlement, concluded under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, especially, when the existence and validity of such a settlement is disputed by the third respondent. However, it is open to the petitioner Sangam or to the individual members of the petitioner Sangam, who are said to be parties to the alleged settlement, dated 30.6.99, which is said to have been concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to approach the appropriate forum, by invoking the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to implement the same, if so advised, in the manner known to law. With the above observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem 636 001. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Advocate, SR.58608 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.58865 Writ Petition No.1771 of 2001 CK(CO) SRA(29/10/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/