IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 27.10.2009 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.PNo.11290 of 2000 Chemplast Employees Union rep. by its Secretary Raman Nagar Mettur Dam Salem District-636 403. ...Petitioner -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Labour and Employment Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009. 2. The Management of Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Plant – II Raman Nagar, Mettur Dam Salem District – 636 403. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the first respondent relating to G.O.(D) No.940 dated 21.10.1997; quash the same and direct the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court/Tribunal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy for Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP for R1 Mr.S.Ravindran for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co for R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner challenges the order dated 21 October, 1997 on the file of the first respondent rejecting their request to refer the industrial dispute to resolve the pending disputes between the employer and the employees. 2. The request of the Union to refer the disputes was rejected by the Government on the ground that there was no necessity to refer the issues raised in the reference application. 3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent while rejecting the application under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not expected to consider the merits of the matter. However in the impugned order the first respondent has decided the very dispute itself which was beyond the jurisdiction in a proceeding under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government was not justified in considering the issues on merits while rejecting the application for reference. According to the learned counsel the role of the Government was very much limited. The Government has to form an opinion as to whether industrial disputes arose or apprehended between the management and the workers so as to refer such disputes for adjudication. Therefore the first respondent was not justified in considering the merits of the matter while rejecting the application for reference. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent justified the order passed by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel the first respondent was expected to form an opinion as to whether any dispute exists or was apprehended and in the process of forming such opinion, the Government was bound to consider primary materials. While considering such materials, if the Government was of the view that the workers are not entitled for an adjudication of those issues which attained finality earlier or those demands were against the certified standing orders, the Government was well within their jurisdiction to reject the application by indicating reasons. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the subsequent settlements arrived at between the petitioner and the second respondent. 6. The dispute involved in this matter is of the year 1993 and the conciliation conducted in the matter also ended in failure. The first respondent as per order dated 21.10.1997 rejected the request for reference. It is found from the typed set of papers circulated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that even after the subject dispute there were settlements entered into between the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and the second respondent on 25 October, 1995, 6 November, 2000, 2 July, 2004 and on 5 December, 2007. 7. By way of subsequent settlements, the existing dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent was resolved. 8. The settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 6 November, 2000 contains a provision that all the pending demands were settled and it reads thus:- "The union hereby drop all pending demands and claims including those contained in the Charter of Demands, dated 31.8.1998 which have not been conceded or considered under this settlement. The union hereby agrees not to make any further fresh demands or claims in future during the period of operation of this settlement which will involve additional financial commitment to the company direct or indirect." 9. Similar provisions are contained in the subsequent settlements dated 2 July, 2004 and 5 December, 2007. In fact clause 26 of the Settlement dated 2 July, 2004 clearly provides that the Union hereby dropped all the pending demands and claims including those contained in the Charter of Demands dated 26, August, 2002 which was not conceded or considered under such settlement. Therefore the petitioner has given a categorical undertaking that all the pending demands were settled. The said settlement is still in force. 10. The dispute which is involved in this writ petition was pending as on the date on which Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was arrived at between the parties on 6 November, 2000, 2 July, 2004 and on 5 December, 2007. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to make a reference at this point of time even if it is found that the impugned order was not justified. 11. The industrial Disputes Act was introduced with the laudable object of ensuring good relationship between the employers and employees as it would ultimately improve social justice. The maintenance of industrial harmony and cordial relationship between the employers and the employees are absolutely necessary for industrial peace. Therefore it should be the endeavor of the employers and employees to refrain from doing anything which would affect the cordial relationship between them. Therefore I am of the view that the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent should be maintained and neither of them should engage in anything which would ruin the industrial harmony. There is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ winner or loser in this writ petition and the disposal is only on account of the subsequent developments. 12. This writ petition is disposed of as indicated above with the fond hope that the employees and the management would continue to maintain their relationship in the interest of both the parties and the society as well. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Tr/ To 1. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009. + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR 57181 W.P.No.11290 OF 2000 KJ (CO) RH (9.11.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/