The petitioner, who is Honorary President of New Woodlands Hotel Employees' Union, has filed the present writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents viz., the Labour Officer (III), Office of the Assistant, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108 and the Managing Director, New Woodlands Hotel Private Limited, Mylapore, from implementing 18(1) settlement dated 28.09.2016 as the same is contrary to previous 12(3) settlement dated 11.01.2013 and Sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act, 1958.
2.Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that 12(3) Settlement was entered into between the Management and the Employees' Union on 11.01.2013 for a period of four years from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2016. Before expiring 12(3) Settlement on 30.06.2016, a new settlement was to be entered into with the Management, for which, the petitioner Union had given their demand on 13.05.2016 to the second respondent/Management and thereafter, before the first respondent herein, on 15.07.2016, raised a dispute under
Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act and thereafter, conciliation was initiated from 15.07.2016 with the Labour Officer (III)/first respondent herein, since the second respondent failed to accept the same. Therefore, notice was issued to both Management and Union on 10.08.2016, 24.08.2016, 29.09.2016 and 07.10.2016 by the first respondent and conciliation is still pending on the file of the first respondent. Adding further, he would submit that when conciliation even now pending on the file of the first respondent, the second respondent-Management has entered into 18(1) settlement with another union, namely New Woodlands Hotel Employees' Munnetra Sangam on 28.09.2016 which is a minority union with less than 20 members, who are all pro-management, which was signed by the Manager on behalf of Management who is only a co-employee and the Office bearers of the Minority Union and therefore, they have signed in the settlement which is against law. Now after 18(1) settlement, the management / second respondent herein insisting upon every employee to sign separate form indicating that employee is accepting the said settlement for which the management is giving all sort of pressures. Adding further, he would submit that in the previous 12(3) settlement conveyance allowance was paid at the rate of Rs.1,600/- and now through new 18(1) settlement only Rs.800/- is sought to be paid. Moreover, washing allowance has been reduced from Rs.971/- to Rs.800/- and this apart, service charges were reduced from Rs.2470/- to Rs.800/-. Like wise, each and every fringe benefits were reduced from the previous 12(3) settlement, therefore, in view of that, the writ of Mandamus should be issued forbearing the respondents herein from implementing the 18(1) settlement dated 28.09.2016 as the same is contrary to previous 12(3) settlement dated 11.01.2013 and Sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act, 1958.
3.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr.S.Ravindaran, learned counsel for the second respondent would urge this Court to dismiss the writ petition as it is not maintainable against the second respondent who is a private limited company. More over, he pleaded that a settlement signed between two willing parties cannot be questioned by a third party like the petitioner. In the case on hand, the settlement dated 28.09.2016 entered into under
Section 18(1) of the ID Act, is not binding on the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be questioned under any circumstances. Adding further, he would also further submit that the settlement reached under
Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act, dated 11.01.2013, has already been implemented and the recent settlement entered into under
Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act on 28.09.2016 in favour of the parties has been accepted, therfore, there is no option to the petitioner who has kept away from the settlement proceedings to question the same. More over, when the first respondent is conciliating the matter, the petitioner, without waiting for conclusion thereon, cannot come to this Court. Even if any decision which goes against the petitioner is taken, it is open to him to question the same before the Labour Court/first respondent herein. Leaving that option always available to the petitioner, the present writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage.
4.I find merits on the submissions of the learned counsel for the second respondent since the settlement dated 28.09.2016 reached under
Section 18(1) of ID Act has already been implemented in favour of the parties , this Court finds no justification in entertaining the writ petition. Moreover, a settlement signed by two willing parties cannot be questioned by a third party like the petitioner. Besides, as mentioned above, the settlement 28.09.2016 entered into under
Section 18(1) of ID Act, is not binding on the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be questioned. However, this Court entertaining the request of both parties for early disposal of the same, hereby directs the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and the respondents on priority basis, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and find a suitable and amicable settlement.
5.With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.