Madras HC directs private mill in Udumalpet to carry out six-month wage settlement pending for 21 years to 98 workers

The workers are to receive about ₹50,000 each as wages for the duration of six months and 10 days

More than 20 years after they were denied wages for a little over six-month period by Sri Venkatesa Mills at Udumalpet, 98 industrial workers have been assured of settlement through an order of the Madras High Court earlier this month.

The workers are to receive about ₹50,000 each as wages for the duration of six months and 10 days during 2003, from March 20 to September 30, as per the terms of settlement issued by the Industrial Tribunal during 2008, the High Court directive states.

The cases of these industrial workers were represented in the High Court by Kovai Periyar Mavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, Tamilazha Panchalai Tholizhalar Sangam, and Kovai Jilla Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam, and a few other unions.

“It is a matter of immense relief that the pursuit of the case for welfare of the 98 workers for 21-long years has come to fruition,” S. Duraisamy, general secretary of Kovai Periyar Mavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, which stood steadfastly with the workers till the end, said.

The Industrial Dispute was raised by the unions challenging the ‘suspension of operations’ notice dated March 20, 2003, issued by the management of Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd., Udumalpet, as “illegal and unjustified”.

The award passed by the Labour Tribunal on July 21, 2008, was challenged by the management.

The mill that had been in existence for over 60 years and employed nearly 665 workers had, on March 14, 2003, put up a notice stating that in lieu of financial losses, it had decided to offer voluntary retirement from service(VRS) to the workers at ₹2,000 for every remaining year of service besides gratuity.

The 98 workers did not accept the VRS and therefore, the company had issued a notice of ‘Suspension of Operations’ of the Mill.

The unions had raised industrial dispute in the Labour Court for adjudication, on the ground that the decision to suspend operation was made unilaterally by the mill, and that no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority that the Industrial Disputes Act warrant. The management had put forth its case that it was reeling under acute financial problems and, hence, constrained to issue the notice of ‘Suspension of Operation’. The stand of the unions was that the suspension of operation was a case of lay off that required prior permission.

Eventually, the Labour Court had passed the award holding that the declaration of the ‘Suspension of Operation’ by the management was “illegal and unjustified” and that the workers were entitled to all the emoluments for the period from March 20, 2003 to September 30, 2003.

The High Court had, in its order, referred to the acceptance by the management, during 2005, to abide by the terms of settlement of the Industrial Tribunal, and upheld it.

The management of the mill had accepted to abide by the terms of settlement during the talks it held with representatives of unions representing protesting workers. The mill management had sought police protection in view of the protests.