Disposed

Kumari Mavatta Arasu Rubber v. the Commissioner and

Madras HC6 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3446/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Labour Commissioner regarding a failure report on an industrial dispute. The court directed the Commissioner to act on the report within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to take action on the failure report and refer the dispute for adjudication within twelve weeks.

Kumari Mavatta Arasu Rubber Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.3446 of 2013

¶6

Kumari Mavatta Arasu Rubber Anaithu Thotta Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam Koottamaippu (Regn.No.666 K.K.M) 9-27, Kalikesam, Keeriparai, Keeriparai Post-629 824, Kanyakumari District, Rep.by P.Vijayan, General Secretary of the Trade Union. .... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Nagercoil. 3.The Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, P.B.No.75, Vadasery, Nagercoil-629 001, Kanyakumari District. .... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the failure report sent by the second respondent and to refer the Industrial Disputes to any one of the adjudicatory bodies for adjudication.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Prabhakaran For Respondents :Mr.M.Govindran Spl Govt Pleader.

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the failure report sent by the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent and to refer the Industrial Disputes to any one of the adjudicatory bodies for adjudication.

¶11

¶12

Mr.M.Govindran, learned Special Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of relief prayed for there is no need to issue notice to the third respondent.

¶13

3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶14

Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶15

4.The petitioner's Union raised the dispute under Section 2(k)under the Industrial Disputes Act, before the second respondent and after initiating conciliation proceedings, the second respondent submitted a failure report to the first respondent on 25.07.2011. As no action has been taken by the first respondent on the failure report either by making reference to the Labour Court or accepting , this writ is filed.

¶16

5.Considering the nature of relief and the first respondent has to act on the failure report submitted by the second respondent, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to take further action on the failure report submitted by the second respondent in respect of the dispute raised by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶17

gsr Sd/-

¶18

Deputy Registrar (Accounts)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶23

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour(Conciliation)Nagercoil.

¶24

3.The Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, P.B.No.75, Vadasery, Nagercoil-629 001, Kanyakumari District.

¶25

+1 cc to M/s.P.Prabaharan, Advocate SR.No.12244.

¶26

+1 cc to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.13061.

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.3446 of 2013 Dated:06.03.2013

¶28

2P/6C RPB 15.03.2013

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kumari Mavatta Arasu Rubber v. the Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Mavatta Arasu Rubber v. the Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.R. Pramoth, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

A. Thiraviyam, Vs the District Forest Officer

S.Maveeran, Vs the Chairman , Tamil Nadu

M. Manimurugan, Vs the Commissioner

Vasantham Catering Vs the Anna University

D. Varadharajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu