p 2024
Mills 1, oF
Mls, C6)
Rep. by its Chain M,
ln
Sti Sumanth Ramamyc
Aged about 61 years
petitioner
And
Abou,
Onli
thapuran “lation Officer
cer,
7 *IMuiat Tribunal cum
LY, Super «
; are cei Milla Unit
“Puram Dist "7, KIRIKERA,
. Respondents
The i
Ie sides for service on the at
bove n, is that of their counsel
i | KVR Choy Med Petitioners is that o No.1
1536835, Viena hia, en, Anuacha, “Advocates, H.
* Amaravetni-s00020
against the cann
1on of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 and offends Article 16 and 19 of
Constitution of
India, and pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
‘the case,
COUNSEL FOR PETOITIONER
‘Amaravathil
Er~ ,OF
Mey 4 we
Mi Co, 8 stat?
AN ngs OF Te
Nah bine ATURE A
SAY AMARA
Warn,
544 ana
Between:
Mis, ‘Super Spinning
ceistered Office,
Elgi Towers, Red
Coimbatore
ep. by its Chat
ri SUM, W loner.
sed abou MAMURTi . Pat
and
~ The Joint: Commissioner, Of Labour
“moo Zong
Kuma]
nw, Commissioner f Labous/ "ellistion Officer
Antenna Dae!
Avantgpara
“ The Chaman, Rim Presiding Ores, ‘dustin Tia eum
Sor Cou
5 Scerctary,
Mill “Am yi, ecrika Songham,
Se? KIRIKERA eal,
"Red Fields, Coimbaore South, Pin -
Ws
hereby solemnly affiem and sincerely state as follo
ma itn
Shima tree
che HORNY,
801 US
ees Golds,
bene ita a
oie NDUR SeeFoo, 6 ( r
See MSE he Fey wey
Othe ease, Meteore Lm in a i
position to depose this affidavit,
‘The aforesnid wait petition is Filey gua. Ng the legality and validity of
reference purportedly under Section 19 OF tngytigy Dispute Act, 1947 vide
LxNoDU/1515/2020 dated 1975/2021 issucd bythe 2% Respondent herein othe
«respondent erin refeting the alleged indus dispute,
“Whether the ction ofthe management of Super Spinning Mis Limited, “4°
nit, Kira, Hindus juste Inno considering the carer offlowing
demands ofthe Union.
1. Declare the lay-off announced by the management of Super Spinning Mills
‘Limited, “A' Unit, Kirikera, Hindupur(Mj, without prior permission as
illegal.
2. Directing the respondent, the management to pay wages/compensation for
illegal lay-off and 10 reopen the factory.
3. Declaring the action of Management that “there are only two permanent
workers and all other workers are casual type of workers” as illegal.
‘Uf not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
3, T may at once point out that the reference ofan alleged dispute is wholly illegal,
incompetent and nonexistent, in as much as, atthe tine of raising such dispute
allegedly by the 5* Respondent herein, the existing two trade unions of the
‘workmen of the unit including the 5* respondent union have already settled al the