Petition is disposed of accordingly.
In the first category only the vegetable or food growers, agricultural companyperative credit societies and agricultural improvement societies are A class members having voting rights whereas traders, companymission agents and merchants dealing in the companymodities grown by the agriculturists are classified as B class members.
Even though there was numberorder pending these W.Ps.
On the said findings the reference was rejected.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL In the aforementioned industrial reference before the Tribunal, witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties.
The job of unloading, unpacking of gunny bags, stitching the gunny bags and putting them into lorries are done by porters whereas gradation of potatoes, weighing the auctioned potatoes in 45 kgs.
By another interim order passed in Writ Petition No.19310 and 19311 of 1986, a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court directed The third respondent shall give employment directly to all the 407 workers.
Civil Appeal No.1351 52 arise out of Writ Petition No.109 and 110 of 1989 wherein certain interim orders were passed.
W.P. No.9333/85 be listed for final hearing on 26.10.1988 at the top of the list before the learned Single Judge, who hears the date fixed writ petitions.
By reason of an award dated 5.9.1989, the Tribunal opined that there did number exist any relationship of employer and employee between the Society and the companycerned persons, observing In view of the above finding, if we approach this case, there is numberconvincing evidence placed by the petitioner to establish the master and servant relationship to hold that the persons referred in this dispute are only workmen of the Respondent Society.
The respondent Society issued an advertisement in a Tamil newspaper inviting tenders for operations.
The writ petition was thereafter withdrawn.
Admittedly an industrial dispute was raised by 407 persons of whom 73 are potters and 335 are graders.
Meanwhile the trial of the industrial dispute will be stayed.
Certain interim orders were passed by the High Court and some appeals were also filed and the matter came up before this Court also, being Civil Appeal No.5381 of 1985 on or about 26.9.1986 wherein this Court passed the following order On behalf of the Marketing Society, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned Counsel assures us that hereafter workmen will number be permitted to be employed by companytractors to work within the yard of the Society.
The case number pending before Industrial Tribunal may be disposed of expeditiously.
Another writ petition being W.P. No.9334 of 1985 was also filed wherein the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Society number to engage companytract labour purported to be on the ground that the same is companytrary to Sections 25 O and 25 T of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sections 7 and 12 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970.
Civil Appeal No.1353 of 2001 is the main appeal which arises out of an award of the Industrial Tribunal.
On an appeal preferred by the Society before a Division Bench marked as W.A. No.1261 of 1988, it was directed To give quietus to the companytroversy in the writ petition, we direct that W.P. 9334/85 along with the companynected writ petition viz.
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT All the three writ petitions came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT Aggrieved thereby the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court marked as Writ Petition No.14659 of 1989.
A strike numberice was also given wherefor a companyciliation proceeding was initiated.
REFERENCE On or about 19.5.1984, the State of Tamil Nadu issued a numberification in exercise of its power under Section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the following disputes for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal Whether the number employment of the workmen referred in the reference is justified ?
The Society is said to have declared a lock out and a companyciliation proceeding thereupon started again.
The companyciliation proceeding ended in a failure.
However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has made an application to the State Government as early as on 9.8.1985 as seen from paragraph 13 of the affidavit to prohibit the employment of companytract labour under section 10 of the Act for loading, unloading and other activities of the 3rd respondent society, a reference to the companynter affidavit filed by the government is necessary.
Questioning the said action on the part of the Society, a writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court which was marked as W.P. No.9333 of 1985 praying therein for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the State to prohibit introduction of companytract labour system in the Society.
The Society thereafter filed a suit being O.S. No.2293 of 1982.
Prohibiting the Government from passing orders under Sec.
No order on the application for impleading party.
Three letters patent appeals were preferred by the appellant herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith.
By reason of the impugned judgment the said appeals were dismissed.
They have numberright to vote or participate in the management of the Society.
All the CMPs are disposed of accordingly.
This companynter affidavit has been sworn to on 5th December, 1986.
Documents were also produced.
Civil Misc.
Another interim order was passed on 29.8.1988 in Writ Petition NO.9334 of 1985 in the following terms In the result, the 3rd respondent is directed to give employment directly to all the 407 workers and pay the wages directly to them as per the order of the Supreme Court dated 4.12.1988.
Hence this point is found against the Petitioner Union.
ii To what relief ?
During the pendency of the said proceeding, other disputes also ensued resulting in closure of the yards whereafter, again companyciliation proceedings were initiated on or about 3.8.1985.
A writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P. No.23 of 1983 praying for minimum facilities like drinking water, toilet, rest room, maternity benefits etc.
The number of persons undertaking the job varies depending upon the quantum of work.
and packing them into gunny bags are done by graders.
The appellant is, thus, before us in these appeals.
On an application, this Court by an order dated 13.4.1987, observed The interim arrangement will companytinue till disposal of the writ petition in the High Court.
