Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Textile vs C.A.Rathinavel on 21 February, 2025
W.P.No.19418 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 07/ 02/2025
Pronounced on : 21/02/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
Writ Petition No. 19418 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.24005 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Textile
Processing Mills Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director M.Selvaraj,
No.CH:22, 428, Bhavani Main Road,
Veerappanchatram,
Erode – 638 004. …Petitioner
Vs.
1. C.A.Rathinavel,
1/207, Jagajeevanram Street,
Chemmencherry,
Chennai – 600 119.
2. Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union (HMS),
Regn. No. 111/MDS, Rep. by its Secretary,
2212, Trichy Road,
Singanallur P.O.,
Coimbatore – 641 005. …Respondents
Prayer in W.P. No.19418 of 2020: To issue a writ in the nature
of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned award passed by the Learned Labour Court, Salem in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 14
W.P.No.19418 of 2020
I.D.No.161/2010 dated 23.01.2017 and quash the same, or pass as
such other orders.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.24005 of 2020: This Writ Miscellaneous
petition is filed to stay the impugned award passed by the Learned
Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.161/2010 dated 23.01.2017,
pending disposal of the writ petition.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : M/s. V.L.Akshai Sajin Kumar,
K.Siddharth and T.Adith Narayan,
Advocates
For Respondent : Mr.V.Stalin, Advocate
For M/s. Row and Reddy, Advocates
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The writ petitioner is a cooperative textile processing mill
located in Erode. Through this writ petition, the management
challenges the award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Labour
Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 161 of 2010. By this award, the Labour
Court held that the demotion of the concerned workman,
C.A. Rathinavel, to the position of Supervisor was invalid, and his
transfer to the dyeing factory in Trichy was also illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 14
Consequently, the Labour Court directed that the workman be
reinstated to the post of Assistant Dyeing Master from the date of
his demotion, with continuity of service, back wages, and all other
attendant benefits.
3. In the writ petition, a notice of motion was ordered on
21.12.2020, with permission granted for private notice as well.
Upon receipt of the notice, the Respondent Trade Union entered
an appearance through its counsel. No orders were passed in the
Miscellaneous Petition. However, when the matter was taken up
on 06.02.2025, the Respondent stated that the workman had
retired from service.
4. The workman in question, C.A. Rathinavel, was
employed as an Assistant Dyeing Master at the Petitioner Mills.
He was dismissed from service by an order dated 04.02.2006
issued by the Managing Director of the Petitioner Mill, based on
proven charges. Challenging this dismissal, he filed a Revision
Petition before the Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles
under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 14
Accordingly, C.A. Rathinavel submitted his Revision Petition on
19.04.2006. As the proceedings were being delayed, he
approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 25013 of 2006, seeking
a direction to the Commissioner to consider and decide his
Revision Petition. The writ petition was disposed of on
09.08.2006, directing the Commissioner to dispose of the
Revision Petition (marked as Ex.R23).
5. Even earlier, C.A. Rathinavel had been transferred from
Erode to Trichy by an order dated 29.09.2005. He challenged this
transfer through W.P. No. 32064 of 2005. However, the writ
petition was dismissed on 07.03.2012, with the Court holding that
the transfer order issued by the management could not be
interfered with (Ex.M2). Subsequently, his demotion and transfer
were taken up by his trade union, the Coimbatore District Textile
Workers Union (HMS), under Section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act before the Government Labour Officer, Erode.
As the Conciliation Officer was unable to facilitate a settlement, a
failure report was submitted to the Government on 16.10.2017. In
response, the Government of Tamil Nadu, through G.O.(D1) No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 14
355 of the Labour and Employment Department dated 17.06.2010,
referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Erode. The terms of
reference were as follows: (1) Whether the reduction in rank of
C.A. Rathinavel to the position of Supervisor was justified, and if
not, what relief he is entitled to. (2)Whether the order of transfer
of the workman to the dyeing factory at Trichy was justified, and
if not, what relief is available to the workman.
6. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D. No. 161 of
2010 and issued notices to the parties involved. The trade union
submitted a claim statement, asserting that Rathinavel was a
member of the union and a permanent worker of the Petitioner
Mills. He had been working as a Supervisor since 10.05.1979. The
claim statement further highlighted that an earlier dispute in the
Petitioner Mills concerning wages, grade, and uniforms for
Supervisors and Shift In-charges. This dispute was adjudicated in
I.D. No. 14 of 1995, resulting in an award dated 30.04.1998
(Ex.W2). In that award, the Labour Court concluded that
Supervisors and Shift In-charges were "workmen" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 14
that their demands were justified.
7. The workman, C.A. Rathinavel, was issued a charge
memo on 13.01.2005 on certain grounds. Following a so – called
enquiry, he was dismissed from service by an order dated
04.02.2006. Challenging his dismissal, he filed a Revision Petition
before the Director of Handlooms. The Revision Petition was
allowed by an order dated 09.11.2006 (Ex.M4), setting aside the
dismissal order and directing that the workman be placed in a
lower post. Subsequently, by an order dated 11.02.2006,
Rathinavel was demoted from the post of Assistant Dyeing Master
to Supervisor. The order of transfer and the demotion were
unjustified. Even after the High Court's order dated 21.12.2010,
and the order of the Director of Handlooms dated 29.11.2011, the
workman has not given proper employment and the post of
supervisor is vacant of Erode.
8. The Management opposed the claim by asserting that
the Revision Petition challenging the dismissal order dated
04.02.2006 had been dismissed. Since the charges of misconduct
against the workman were proven, he was dismissed from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 14
In the Revision Petition, the Director had merely ordered his
demotion. The workman's transfer was necessitated by operational
exigencies and his challenge to the transfer had already been
dismissed by this Court. He is also not a workman within the
definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, rendering the dispute itself not maintainable.
9. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent Union
examined the concerned workman, C.A. Rathinavel, as WW1 and
submitted 11 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.
On behalf of the Management, M/s. Dakshinamurthi and
Mohanraj were examined as MW1 and MW2, respectively, and 24
documents were submitted, marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R24. Upon
analyzing the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the
workman’s transfer to the dyeing factory at Trichy was invalid.
Consequently, he be reinstated to service in the position of
Assistant Dyeing Master, effective from the date of his demotion,
with back wages and continuity of service.
10. The Labour Court held that the dispute was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 of 14
maintainable, noting that an earlier award had already established
that Supervisors and Shift In-charges qualified as "workmen"
under the Industrial Disputes Act. This position was also admitted
by the two witnesses presented by the Management. The Labour
Court further referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court
in Management of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Lakshmiah & Anr.,
reported in 2002 (2) LLN 725. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as follows:
“12. …In our considered opinion, the management
has failed to substantiate its contention that the first
respondent was only performing the duties of supervisory/
managerial character. On the other hand, the evidence
tendered on behalf of the appellant itself disclosed that
the first respondent was only performing the duties of an
ordinary skilled workman and nothing more.”
…….
13. ….Therefore, when there was no evidence, much less,
acceptable evidence, tendered on behalf of the appellant
to prove their stand that the first respondent was not a
"workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act of 1947, the award impugned, in the writ
petition rejecting the claim of the first respondent solely
on that ground cannot be sustained.”
11. Regarding the Management's objection that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 of 14
collective dispute was not maintainable due to the Respondent
Trade Union's alleged lack of substantial support among the
workmen in the Petitioner establishment, the Labour Court found
otherwise. The Trade Union had produced its registration
certificate and Form-E returns, marked as Ex.P9 to Ex.P11. The
evidence revealed that the Trade Union was actively functioning
within the Petitioner Mills and had a membership strength of
1,455 workers. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the
Management, the Labour Court concluded that the union had the
legitimate right to represent the workman's cause.
12. Regarding the allegations of misconduct covered in the
charge memo dated 13.01.2005, the Labour Court found that the
Management had not submitted either the workman’s explanation
or the charge memo itself. Although a domestic enquiry had been
conducted concerning the charge memo, no supporting documents
were presented before the Court. The Labour Court emphasized
that it was the Management's duty to substantiate the charges with
credible evidence. While the Management claimed that material
sent to the central prison had been returned as unsatisfactory, no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 of 14
correspondence from the prison department was produced to
support this claim. The Management could not merely assert that
the charges were proven in the enquiry without presenting
convincing evidence to satisfy the Labour Court. Consequently,
the Labour Court concluded that the Management had failed to
prove the charges based on the charge memo dated 13.01.2005.
13. Similarly, during the enquiry related to the charge
memo dated 13.01.2005, another memo containing seven
additional charges was combined with the initial charges, and a
common order was passed instead of conducting two separate
enquiries. As a result, the Labour Court held that the dismissal
order was not valid. Since no relevant materials were produced
before the Labour Court, it cannot that there was a valid order of
dismissal or justify the consequential reduction in rank pursuant to
the Revision Order.
14. Regarding the issue of transfer, the Labour Court found
that it was tainted with malafides. During cross-examination, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 14
witness MW2 admitted that no production work was taking place
at the Trichy factory. This admission cast doubt on the legitimacy
of the transfer to Trichy, suggesting suspicious circumstances. The
order of the Director of Handlooms, dated 29.11.2011, had also
stated that the transfer to Trichy was wrong and the workman
should be provided with due employment. This further indicated
that the transfer was motivated by ulterior reasons. Although the
Management, in its written arguments, claimed that Rathinavel
had been transferred back from Trichy to Erode, the initial transfer
order to Trichy itself was not valid. On this basis, the Labour
Court set aside both the reduction in rank and the transfer order.
15. The counsel for the Management relied on the judgment
of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3705 of 2000, M/s.
D.C.M. Shri Ram Consolidate Ltd. vs. B.K. Gupta & Ors., dated
10.02.2015, to argue that the burden of proving whether a person
is a "workman" lies on the workman himself, not on the
Management. However, this judgment does not assist the
Management's case. In the present matter, during the previous
round of litigation, it had already been determined that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 of 14
Supervisors and Shift In-charges qualified as "workmen" under
the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Management cannot
re-agitate this issue once again.
16. The counsel for the Respondent Union also relied on an
unreported judgment of this Court in Management of Oman Air by
its District Sales Manager vs. The Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Anr., in W.P. No. 31951 of 2014
and 3825 of 2015 dated 22.08.2024. In that case, a learned judge,
while upholding the award of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal (CGIT), held that the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution should not be exercised merely because there is a
possibility of forming a different opinion on the matter. The
judgment also endorsed the grant of full back wages in cases of
wrongful termination.
17. In light of the foregoing, the writ petition,
W.P. No. 19418 of 2020, lacks merit and accordingly stand
dismissed. No costs. Although it was reported that the workman
has retired from service, and despite his earlier transfer back from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12 of 14
Trichy to Erode, it is made clear that any dues available under the
Award shall be recoverable by the Respondent Union from the
Management and give it to the workman. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition, W.M.P. No. 24005 of 2020, is
also stand dismissed.
21.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
av
Copy to:
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem.
2. The Secretary,
Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union (HMS),
Regn. No. 111/MDS,
2212, Trichy Road,
Singanallur P.O.,
Coimbatore – 641 005.
DR. A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13 of 14
av
Pre-delivery Judgment in
Writ Petition No. 19418 of 2020
and
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14 of 14
