Comments
Without a valid decree, it was not clear how workmen could prefer a writ petition against creditors of an establishment seeking relief against their dues, the Madras High Court said while hearing a petition.
The Sree Karthikeya Industries Workers Union, Ranipet, demanded from Sri Karthikeya Industries, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet, closure compensation bonus, leave salary and gratuity totalling Rs 28.02 lakh out of the sale proceeds of movable and immovable properties of the company that were offered for auction sale by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ranipet, against tax dues.
The workmen (petitioner) contended that they and the management entered into a settlement for revision of wages on February 13, 2003, under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act for three years. Thereafter, no revision was made, and the petitioner raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Vellore. Despite notices, the company did not appear and they laid off workers from March 1, 2006, to March 31, 2006. This was followed by a lockout. It was labelled as ‘suspension of operation' from April 1, 2006.
The Commercial Tax Department brought the properties for sale towards adjustment of dues. The petitioner submitted that if the properties were sold and money appropriated by the department, nothing would be left for the workers. Hence, the present writ petition.
Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard the petition, ruled that in the absence of any order of any court computing due to the workmen, and in the absence of attachment orders passed against the properties, the petition seeking to secure alleged dues could not be entertained by this Court.
Under section 24(2) of the TN General Sales-Tax Act, it was claimed, the State had priority over other claims. Only after meeting the State's claims, if any amount was left, the workmen might get their dues.
In the absence of any decree in favour of workmen, it was not clear how the petitioner could file the petition against creditors, viz Commercial Tax Office and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation pleading for setting apart money to meet their dues.
The dues themselves were not ascertained by any court or by the Payment of Wages Authority or Gratuity Authority.
The Judge held that that issuing directions to the PF and ESI authorities to attach the properties of the employer, as prayed by the petitioner, was outside the scope of this case, as the PF Department was not before this Court to ascertain the dues. Under no circumstances can the union create a charge over the properties by filing the writ petition.
The Court dismissed the petition.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.