MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.       P.No.12808 of 2024and W.M.P.No.13982 of 2024 The Management of Pennar Industries Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.       P.No.12808 of 2024and

W.M.P.No.13982 of 2024

The Management of Pennar Industries Limited

Patta No. 452, 90 Periyapalayam Main Road,

Kannigaiperu Village, Oothukkottai Taluk,

Thiruvallur District

Petitioner

Vs

United Labour Federation,

Regn. No.2657/ CNI,

Rep. By its Secretary,

No.149, Thambuchetty Street,

CJ Complex, IV Floor,

Chennai-01

Respondent

PRAYER

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 21.02.2024 in O.P. No. 4 of 2019 and to quash the order.

                            For Petitioner:   Mr.K.Rangesh

                            For Respondent:    Mr.R.Vignesh

ORDER

Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu, Chennai, dated 21.02.2024 in O.P.No.4 of 2019

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and material records of the case, it can be seen that claiming on behalf of the Workmen under the petitioner- management, the respondent-trade union raised the charter of demands majority. The demands wherein respect of each and every aspects of the wage, structure, allowance, etc. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide G.O.(D).No.284, dated 22.06.2015 and the questions to be adjudicated are mentioned therein and extracted in the impugned award of the

Tribunal in paragraph No.1.

AWARD

The Government of Tamil Nadu has by way of G.O. (D)No.284 dated 22.06.2015 referred the present dispute for adjudication and the following issues were referred to adjudication. vGtpdhf;fs;

nfhhpf;if vz:/2

midj;J bjhHpyhsh;fSf;Fk ; jw;nghJ

tH’;fg;gl;L tUk; mog;gil rk;gsj;Jld; nkYk ; U:/5000-=k cah;j;jp ju ntz;Lbkd kDjhuh ; r’;fk ; nfhUtJ epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy; chpa cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;ft[k;/ nfhhpf;if vz;/3 khWfpd;w g”;rgg;goahdJ bjhHpyf bjhHpyhsh;fs; mog;gil Mz;L 2001?100 d;go (Efh;nthh ; tpiythrp bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F c&pg;l; xd;Wf;F U:/50-=k;. ,ut [ c&pg;l bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F c&pg;l; xd;Wf;F U:/75-=k; tH’;f ntz;Lbkd bjhHpw; r’;fk; nfhupa[s;sJ epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy; chpa cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;ft[k;/ nfhhpf;if vz;/10 ryitg;go khjk ; U:/1000-=k; tH’;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd kDjhuh; bjhHpw;r’;fk; nfhUtJ  epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy;

chpa cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;ft[k;/ nfhhpf;if vz;/11 bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F jw;nghJ tH’;fg;gl;L tUk; fy;tpg;go U:/200-= cld; nkYk ; U:/1300-= nrh;j;J U:/1500-= tH’;f ntz;Lk; vd;w bjhHpw; r’;fj;jpd; nfhhpf;if epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy; chpa cj;jutfs;[ gpwg;gpf;f/ nfhhpf;if vz;/12

bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F jw;nghJ tH’;fg;gl;L tUk; rpwg;g[g;goa[ld; nkYk ; U:/1500-=  tH’;f ntz;Lk; vd;W bjhHpw;r’;fk ; nfhUtJ epahak;jhdh> Mk ; vdpy ; chpa

cj;jutfs; gpwg;gpf;f/ nfhhpf;if vz;/19

Mz;L xd;Wf;F ehd;F brl; rPUila[ld; ijay; Typahf jyh xU brl;ow;F U:/500-=  tH’;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd kDjhuh; r’;fk; nfhUtJ epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy; chpa

cj;jut gpwg;gpf;ft[k;/

nfhhpf;if vz;/21 tUlj;jpw;F ehd;F bgupa ltYk;. khjk; ehd;F bghpa bkokpf;!; nrhg;g[ld ; tH’;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd kDjhuh; r’;fk; nfhUtJ epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy; chpa cj;jut gpwg;gpf;ft[k;/ nfhhpf;if vz;/22

Mz;ow;F xU Kiw kiH nfhl;tH’;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd kDjhuh; r’;fk; nfhUtJ epahak;jhdh> Mk; vdpy; chpa

cj;jut gpwg;gpf;ft[k;/

3.               Under the said circumstances, the Workmen filed a claim statement in support of the claim and the same was resisted by filing a counter affidavit by the management. While so, a memo was filed on behalf of the Workman and it is essential to extract the entire Memorandum that is filed by the Workman.

“MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNION

1.           The petitioner respectfully submitted that the petitioner union raised an industrial dispute against the management on 16.05.2014 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-1) and subsequently failure report issued on 04.12.2014. The respondent management entered into 18(1) Settlement with the Pennar Industries Employees Union on 20.05.2015. Subsequently the respondent management has made two settlements with the Pennar Industries

Employees Union in the year of 2018-2021 and 20212024.

2.           It is further submitted that initially there were 71

workers in the petitioner union. Out of 71 workers 15 workers are working in the respondent management now, 21 workers conducting the dispute against their Transfer orders, 4 workers have been dismissed by the respondent management, and 26 workers have joined with the Pennar Industries Employees Union in the year of 2015. 15 workers who belong to the petitioner union have not accepted the said settlements. Now the workers are ready to accept the settlement due to the poverty and economic commitments. As the majority of the workers have accepted the aforesaid settlements and the rest of the 15 workers are also decided to accept the said settlements. The above said 15 workers doing the same work as the other workers but they are receiving very less salary than the others. Therefore, the 15 workers who are working in the respondent management are entitled to get the benefits of the said settlement.”

4.               As per the award, opportunities were granted for the management to file their objections.  However,  the impugned award records, that is submitted orally by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management that, they have no objection for passing an award in terms of the settlement, however, they have objections with reference to the averments made in the memo. The Tribunal, after taking note of the stand of the management, passed an award in terms of the agreement between the parties, after examining, whether the award was fair and proper. The Tribunal concluded that, since the award is accepted by a majority of Workmen and both sides were willing to go by the settlement, the reference was answered by holding that the demands of the Union are answered in terms of the settlements dated 20.05.2015, 24.08.2018 and 24.08.2022 entered into under Section 18(1)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the parties shall be bound by the terms of the settlement set out therein which shall form part of the award. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the award passed by the

Tribunal are extracted hereunder:-

“4.The said memo was received on record and the management was directed to submit its objections and also copies of the settlement agreements for perusal. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent.  The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the workers who pursued the dispute have not received any increase in wages due to the pending disputes while their counterparts were enjoying the benefits under the settlement. Due to their financial position and accept the settlement already entered into by the majority of the workers and therefore, that an award be passed in terms of the settlement.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent management would contend that the workers have been given substantial increases by way of the settlement, which is product of bilateral negotiations of the management and the majority union. The workers of the management are well satisfied with the increases given and they are working in a peaceful manner. The statements made in the memo that due to poverty and economic commitments, the workers were ready to accept the settlement is not true as the management are giving optimum wages to its workers. Further, the management has never forced the workers to accept the terms of the settlement. Therefore, though there is no objection for passing an award in terms of the settlement, the averment made in the memo are objected.

Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner management.

5.               The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner-management is that, considering the facts stated in the memo itself, it can be seen that the settlement has been accepted by the majority of the employees and even the version of the respondent-union is that, only 15 of them have not accepting the terms of the settlement. If that is the factual scenario, the petitioner-union had no right to expose the cause itself and the dispute as raised itself is not maintainable. Secondly, the award has been passed as if the management has consented to implement  all the three settlements and grant all the benefits under the settlements. However, it can be seen that the submissions on behalf the management were specifically with reference to the latest settlement alone, which is misconstrued by the Industrial Tribunal and the scope of the consent was enlarged by the Tribunal as if the consent was given for implementation of the terms of all the three settlements. As such, this Court has to interfere in the matter.

6.               I heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

Union.

7.               As far as the first ground, that is raised by the petitioner-management, is concerned, when the demands are raised by the Union, merely because during the course of the proceedings, or even prior to the starting of the dispute,  many of the employees have accepted the terms of the settlement, will not by itself preclude the petitioner-union from raise a demand. When the demand pertains to the Workmen of the industry and it relates to their wage conditions and when the petitioner-union is not alien union to the industry and is representing  the workmen, the first ground that is raised merely because the majority of the Workmen have agreed to abide by the settlement, will not go to the root of the matter or affect the maintainability of the dispute before the Tribunal.

8.               The second submission is with reference to the scope of consent and the order, that is passed by the Tribunal. It can be seen that the memo was filed by the trade union herein. The management was given opportunities to file written objections with reference to the memo. They did not choose to file any written objections.  On the contrary, they submitted no objection for passing the award in terms of the settlement. However, it was only represented that  there were objections to the averments made in the memo. That would only mean that they are objecting to the averments, that is made in the memo, that is relating  to the financial conditions and the other factual allegations, that are made in the memo and not the terms of the settlements.

9.               The management has been entering into memorandum of settlement on 20.05.2015, 24.08.2018 and 24.08.2022. It is also seen that the majority of the employees have been going by the settlements and the other employees, who were not willing to abide by the settlements had raised the dispute, but later wanted to give up their claim and go by the settlements. When the management has stated no objection, after giving their consent, they cannot agitate the matter before this Court. What is recorded by the trial Court alone will be taken into account and anything contrary cannot be argued before this Court.

10.           The learned counsel points out paragraph 5, wherein it is recorded by the Tribunal that the management has objections to the averments made in the memo. That would only mean that the averments relating to the allegations contained in the memo, such as, that the workmen are agreeing to the settlement only on account of the condition of the Workmen, are objected and the same cannot be extended to mean that the management intended  restricted benefits under the last settlement alone. I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-management.

11.           Tendering of consent and passing an award or decree in terms of consent is a solemn exercise, that is carried out by the Court and such consent or willingness is not forced on the parties. Once the parties, with an open mind, enter into such an understanding and the awards are being passed, thereafter the parties cannot be permitted to resile from the consent given by them before a Court of law. The scope is very limited and the degree of proof is huge. The submission that is made that the consent given by the management is misconstrued, is not proved and what is recorded before the Tribunal alone can be taken into account by this Court. No immediate memo or any objection is filed before the trial Court, after the award passed on the basis of the consent was challenged. It can be seen that the award was passed on 21.02.2024 and the writ petition was filed on 23.04.2024.

12.           Therefore, such kind of going back belatedly, after giving due consent before the Tribunal, cannot be permitted and no Writ Petition is maintainable as against an award that is passed by consent and I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner-management  with respect to the grounds that are raised with reference to the consent.

13.           Finally, another submission is also made that the parties are negotiating within Mediation with reference to the actual amount payable. The disposal of this writ petition will not, in any manner, prevent the parties from engaging in to meaningful conversation, mediation and settling the issue, amicably. So long as there is consent,  the same can be worked out.

14.           For all the above reasons, the Court finds no merits. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

12-01-2026

Neutral Citation:Yes ari

To

1.The Secretary,

United Labour Federation

Regn. No. 2657/ CNI,

No.149 Thambuchetty Street,

CJ Complex, IV Floor, Chennai 01

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

ari

W.P. No. 12808 of 2024 and W.M.P.No. 13982 of 2024

 

12-01-2026