Madras High Court
Manickam vs The Textile Commissioner on 30 November, 2023
W.P.No.21329 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
W.P.No.21329 of 2011
1.Manickam
2.K.Viswanathan … Petitioner
vs.
1.The Textile Commissioner,
Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India,
having its Regional Office at
Chinthamani Co-op. Super Market Complex,
Mettupalayam Road, R.S.Puram (PO),
Coimbatore – 641 002.
2.The Deputy Director and Officer-in-Charge,
Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner,
Coimbatore – 641 002.
3.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (D-2 Department),
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.Managing Director,
Sri Hari Mills,
55, Race Course Road,
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21329 of 2011
Coimbatore – 18. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to Order No.10(54)/2010-Court/CBE-15744, dated 15.12.2010,
passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct
the 1st 2nd respondents to grant the relief under Textile Workers
Rehabilitation Fund Scheme of Government of India to all the workers of
Sri Hari Mills, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Ms.Pooja Jain for
M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar and Sai
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Karthikeyan
Additional Central Government
Standing Counsel
For R3 : Mr.M.S.Premkumar
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.S.R.Sundar
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to Order
No.10(54)/2010-Court/CBE-15744, dated 15.12.2010, passed by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st 2nd
respondents to grant the relief under Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Scheme of Government of India to all the workers of Sri Hari Mills,
Coimbatore.
2.The 1st petitioner is the Secretary of Sri Hari Mills Branch,
National Textile Union. The 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of the Sri Hari
Mills Branch, Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union, Coimbatore.
Both the petitioners were working as Spinning Siders in the Spinning
Department of the Sri Hari Mills. As the secretaries of the respective
Unions branches of Sri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd., the petitioners were
recognised as the Trade Union Leaders of Sri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Sri
Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the year 1956 and due to severe
financial crisis in the year 1984 it was closed. Thereafter on the directions
of the Government, the Mill was run by the Handlooms & Textiles
Department of the Government with the permission of the BIFR. However
due to heavy losses, the mill was permanently closed on 01.10.1995. As
the workers dues remained unpaid they approached the Hon'ble High
Court which ordered the sale of the immovable properties of the Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for settlement of the dues as per the settlement entered into between the
Unions and the Management reckoning 01.10.1995 as the date of closure.
The Government of India, in order to provide succour to the employees in
the textile industry who lost their livelihood announced Textile Workers
Rehabilitation Fund Scheme to provide relief to the workmen rendered
unemployed as a consequence of closure or liquidation of the Textile Units
in the private sector.
3.A representation dated 17.09.2010 was sent to the respondent
requesting him to issue orders immediately for grant of relief under the
Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme to the workmen of Sri Hari
Mills Pvt. Ltd. As no orders were passed on the aforesaid representation,
the 1st petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.25394 of 2010 seeking for
the disposal of the said representation. This Court vide order dated
01.12.2010 allowed the writ petition, by directing the respondent to
consider and pass orders on the representations dated 01.07.2008 and
06.09.2010, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. In compliance to the order passed by this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25394 of 2010, the second respondent passed the impugned order
dated 15.12.2010, rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of relief
under Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme. Aggrieved by the
rejection order of the second respondent, the petitioners have filed the
above writ petition.
4.The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a detailed counter stating that the
impugned order dated 15.12.2010 was in accordance with law and the
guidelines of the Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme hence the
challenge to the same was untenable. The respondent further stated that
the workers of the Sri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd. were not eligible for grant of
relief under Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme as the Mill was
neither closed under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, nor an
official liquidator was appointed under the Companies Act, 1956, for the
purpose of winding up of the unit. It was further stated that the relief was
to be granted under Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respect of units which strictly adhered the guidelines of the scheme. It was
therefore stated that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same
deserved to be rejected.
5.The third respondent filed its counter stating that the Management
of the Textile Mill objected to the closure of the Mill and therefore the
Mill could not be closed under Section 25(O) of the Act. The third
respondent submitted that the Government did not declare the Mill closed
under Section 25(O) of the ID Act for want of consent for closure by the
Management of the Sri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd..
6.The fourth respondent filed a detailed counter stating that the
TWRF scheme was not applicable to it's workmen and that the workmen
were paid the entire dues payable to them in full quit and final settlement
under Section 18(1) of the settlement entered into between the petitioners
and the Management. The fourth respondent therefore submitted that the
petitioners had no locus standi to file the above writ petition.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an admitted fact that the mill was closed on 01.10.1995. Subsequently,
under orders of BIFR dated 06.11.1996 as confirmed by AIFR on
09.03.1999 the company was directed to be wound up. Therefore
according to the learned counsel when these conditions stipulated in the
scheme were satisfied there was no justification for the respondents to
reject the claim of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner
relying on the letter dated 17.07.2008 and 18.10.2010 of the Joint Textile
Commissioner and the Member Secretary, Commissioner of Labour
submitted that the recommendations were made by the set of parties for
declaring the listed Textiles closed under Section 25(O) of the Act and get
relief under Section TWRF Scheme in consultation with Law Department
as done by Government of Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel therefore
submitted that the impugned order is unjustified and against the interest of
the Labour Court and hence deserved to be setaside.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other
hand submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous, because the
TWRF Scheme was discontinued from 01.04.2017, as the said scheme was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
merged with the Rajiv Gandhi Shramik Kalyan Yojana (RGSKY). The
learned counsel further submitted that it was the mandatory requirement of
the scheme to have a declaration of closure under Section 25 (O) of the ID
Act or in the alternative for an appointment of an Official Liquidator under
the Companies Act for winding up of the unit. As the said conditions were
not satisfied, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief under the
Scheme. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the writ petition
deserved to be dismissed.
9.I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the
materials on record.
10.Eligible conditions for getting the benefit under the TWRF
Scheme are given under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Scheme dated 10.06.2003.
The relevant Clauses 2 and 3 read are as follows:
“2.Such unit should have been completely
closed, meaning that its production had come to a
complete grinding halt after 05.06.1985.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.In addition, such a unit should have been
declared as closed unit under Section 25(O) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or alternatively an
Official Liquidator was appointed under Companies
Act, 1956, for the purpose of wining up of the unit.”
11.From a reading of the above clauses, it is clear that the unit
should have been closed when it's production totally stopped after
05.06.1985 and the unit should have been declared as closed under Section
25 (O) of the ID Act and alternatively, the Official Liquidator should have
been appointed under the Companies Act for the purpose of winding up of
the unit. There is no declaration of closure under Section 25(O) of the ID
Act. Though initially, the Official Liquidator was appointed for the
purpose of the winding up of the unit, the appointment was subsequently
recalled on 24.04.1997 by this Court in C.P.No.83 of 85. It is not disputed
by the petitioner that there is no closure order issued under Section 25(O)
of the ID Act. It is therefore very clear that the conditions under clause 2
and 3 of the Scheme were not satisfied and therefore no fault can be found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the impugned order.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent referred
to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and Another Vs. Shree Shankar Textiles Ex-Employees' Union
and Others reported in (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 783, wherein under
similar facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the very same
Clauses of the scheme held as follows:
“9.It is pointed out that the conditions are
cumulative and in the instant case Conditions (ii) and
(iii) are not fulfilled. The closure was essentially in
terms of conciliation under Section 12(3) of the Act
and the production had come to grinding halt before
5.6.1985. In the writ application there was no
challenge to the policy on the ground that Conditions
(ii) and (iii) suffered from irrationality and
discrimination.”
13.In my view, the above said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. The Order
No.10(54)/2020-Court/CBE-15744 dated 15.12.2010, passed by the
second respondent is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
30.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
ah
To
1.The Textile Commissioner,
Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India,
having its Regional Office at
Chinthamani Co-op. Super Market Complex,
Mettupalayam Road, R.S.Puram (PO),
Coimbatore – 641 002.
2.The Deputy Director and Officer-in-Charge,
Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner,
Coimbatore – 641 002.
3.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (D-2 Department),
Fort St.George,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Chennai – 600 009.
4.Managing Director,
Sri Hari Mills,
55, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore – 18.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.MALA, J.
ah
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
