Order
Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 9826-31 of 2004
1. These petitions are disposed of in terms of the settlement signed between the parties.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2977-79 of 2005 (@ SLPs (C) Nos. 10652-54 of 2004)
2. Leave granted.
3. Writ petitions were filed by several employees of the appellant Company herein, namely, TVS Suzuki Ltd., (now TVS Motor Company Ltd.), challenging certain orders of transfer. The issue whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the appellant was referred with other matters in which a similar issue was raised to a Special Bench of the Madras High Court. On 5-5-2004, the Special Bench came to the conclusion that the writ petitions were not maintainable. However, it was held that the respondent employees would be entitled to seek a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the decision of the High Court. The High Court also directed that if any industrial disputes were raised, then the fora concerned, whether the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would dispose of the same within four months from the date of the receipt of the reference after affording opportunity to either party.
4. The appellant before us has no grievance as far as this direction is concerned as it was the appellant's case throughout that the appellant was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable against it.
5. During the pendency of the matter before the High Court, by reason of the fact that the respondent employees did not join their transfer posts, their services were treated as at an end on the ground of abandonment of their services. In the other cases relating to other companies, the employers had issued letters of termination.
6. The High Court, having held that the writ petition was not maintainable against the companies, went on to direct that
“Without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant-petitioners employees, one week's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is given to the employees to join at the transferred place in respect to such of those dismissed employees, for non-joining at the transferred places, the delay is condoned if they join as stipulated above and in that event, dismissal orders passed against them disappear automatically; and the respondent managements shall sympathetically consider the payments of wages/salaries to the appellant-petitioners so as to maintain the industrial peace and harmony.”
7. The reasoning of the High Court is contradictory to say the least. If the High Court had held that it was unable to grant relief in respect of orders of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution, it certainly was not in a position to adjudicate upon or grant relief in respect of orders of termination of service or abandonment of the service as the case may be. This is settled law and has been clearly laid down in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta 1952 SCR 28, AIR 1952 SC 12. In this case, the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties under Article 226 of the Constitution relating to removal of assets from mining areas. The High Court, however, granted interim relief by injuncting the State of Orissa from disturbing the possession of the writ petitioners over the mining areas for a period of one week after the institution of the suit which, according to the High Court, was the more appropriate remedy. This is what this Court said: (SCR p. 35)
“But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
8. In view of this, the direction of the High Court as quoted above, is set aside. However, no dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act has been raised by the respondent employees because of the pending litigation before this Court. We accordingly extend the time within which the industrial disputes may be raised within a period of four weeks from today and the time within which the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court must dispose of the reference is correspondingly extended. All points on merits raised by the respective parties in this petition on merit will be open for decision by the forum concerned.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.