The Madras High Court has declined to reject a civil suit filed by workers of the Madras Race Club, Guindy, to declare as illegal the club’s action in denying them access to their work place and not paying them wages from December last year.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian passed the order on an application by the club, represented by its secretary, seeking to reject the plaint.
M. Victor and others were employed as workmen in the club. From July 28 to August 9 last year, the club appeared to have terminated the services of 110 persons employed as security personnel.
Protesting against this, the workers union (unregistered) issued a strike call from August 30 demanding reinstatement of the workers. Proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) ended in failure. However, the union decided to resume work without prejudice to their demands. The workers claimed they reported for duty on December 17 last year, but they were prevented by the management from resuming work. Contending that the management’s action as illegal, the workers filed the suit in January this year.
The club’s counsel said the suit was not maintainable among other reasons in view of the implied bar of jurisdiction of civil court contained in the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act. Counsel for the workers said though the dispute was an industrial dispute, the reliefs sought by the workers in the suit did not fall within the four corners of the ID Act.
Dismissing the application, Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian said according to the workers, they reported for duty on December 17 last year. Therefore, even if the Labour Court answered the question as to whether the strike was justified, in workmen’s favour, that court cannot grant anything more than the wages for the period from August 30 to December 14. That was why the workers had filed a suit praying for reliefs from December 17 and not up to the date prior to it when they were on strike. In such circumstances, it was impossible to conclude that the subject matter of the present suit was already covered by the reference made by the government to the Labour Court. The Judge rejected the other contentions of the club. According to the workers, their services had not been terminated either before or on or after December 17. So the master-servant relationship had not been severed. The club had not come out with a categorical assertion whether the workers were terminated or not, the Judge said.