Madras High Court
The Management vs M.Periyanan … on 2 July, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.1965 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON :20.06.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 02.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.1965 of 2019
and WMP(MD).Nos.1611 of 2019, 6293 & 6296 of 2025
The Management
Nachammai Cotton Mill
Chettinad
Sivagangai District ....Petitioner
Vs
M.Periyanan ….Respondent
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award of
Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.20/2012 dated 08.01.2019 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the Management of a Textile
Mill challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.20 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
dated 08.01.2019.
(A)Factual Background:
2.The respondent herein who was working in the spinning section in
the Textile Mill was issued with a charge memo on 22.06.2010 alleging
misconduct on the ground of insubordination. The respondent has submitted
his explanation on 28.06.2010. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were
found to be proved and a second show cause notice was issued to the
respondent on 25.08.2010. The respondent submitted his explanation on
05.09.2010 and a final order of dismissal was passed on 09.09.2010.
Challenging the same, the respondent had filed I.D.No.20 of 2012. The
Labour Court found that the allegation of insubordination on the part of the
respondent has not been proved and directed reinstatement with full
backwages and continuity of service and other attendance benefits.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the
Management.
(B) Submissions on either side are as follows:
3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended
that the Management has entered into an settlement under Section 18(1) of
Industrial Disputes Act fixing the work load of the employees. However, the
respondent had refused to follow the order of the supervisor and therefore, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
basic report was sent by the superintendent as against the respondent herein.
The respondent herein had violated the work load settlement and refused to
undertake the enhanced work. Therefore, it is a clear case of insubordination.
4.According to the Management, the respondent workman claims that
Section 18(1) settlement has been entered into only by the members of
INTUC Union and not CITU Union to which he belongs. Therefore, the said
18(1) settlement is not binding upon him. However, the respondent herein
had received the benefits arising out of the said 18(1) settlement dated
20.03.2009. Under the said settlement, ID cards were issued to the petitioner
and he received the enhanced salary. When a workman receives a benefit
under 18(1) settlement, he cannot contend that he is not a party to the said
settlement.
5.The learned counsel for the Management had further submitted that
when majority of the employees have accepted the said settlement and the
said settlement is fair, just reasonable and mutually advantageous to both the
workman and the management, the same cannot be challenged by a few
workmen, even though they have not signed the same. He relied upon a
judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2009 (5) L.L.N.89 (Case
No.47) (First Flight Couriers Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Couriers,
Cargo and General Employees' Union, Bangalore and another) in support
of his contention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/workman had
contended that a settlement has been reached between the employees and the
employers under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In 12(3)
settlement that was entered into between the management and the workman
on 10.04.2003, a different work load was agreed upon between the parties.
The workman has not violated the said settlement or never refused to
undertake the work as per Section 12(3) settlement. In the Section 18(1)
settlement, the respondent or his union is not a party. Therefore, there is no
insubordination.
7.The Labour Court after considering the submissions made on either
side and after a detailed discussion, had arrived at a finding that the
management cannot insist the workman to follow a settlement reached under
Section 18(1) of the Act which fixes the work load, in view of the fact that
the workman or his union is not a party to the said settlement. The Labour
Court proceeded to set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement
with continuity of service with full backwages.
8.Heard both sides and perused the material records.
(C)Discussion:
9.A perusal of show cause notice to the respondent on 26.12.2009
clearly reveals that the workman had refused to undertake certain work as per
Section 18(1) settlement dated 20.03.2009. There is no allegation that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
petitioner is refusing to undertake the work as per 12(3) settlement dated
10.04.2003. The said 18(1) settlement has been entered into between the
management and the members of INTUC Union in which neither the
respondent nor his trade Union namely CITU are parties. In such
circumstances, the allegation of insubordination cannot be made as against an
employee in not taking up additional work based upon a settlement to which
he is not a party.
10.The show cause notice does not make any allegation as against the
respondent that he is refusing to take up the work as per Section 12(3)
settlement dated 10.04.2003 which is marked as Exhibit W1. Merely because
some benefits were conferred upon the respondent, based upon 18(1)
settlement, the entire 18(1) settlement will not be binding upon the workman,
unless the Union to which he belongs is a party.
11.It is settled position of law that a settlement under Section 18(1) of
Industrial Disputes Act is binding only upon the parties to the said settlement.
Therefore, the allegation of misconduct based upon the work load fixed under
the settlement which is not binding upon the respondent, is clearly
unsustainable in the eye of law. The Labour Court has properly appreciated
the factual and legal position and proceeded to set aside the order of
dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
12.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.07.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
The Labour Court
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
and WMP(MD).Nos.1611 of
2019, 6293 & 6296 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
02.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:44 pm )
