Dismissed

The Management, Penar - v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC8 Apr 2015WP(MD)/16615/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to quash a Labour Court order permitting a joint trial for 53 employment disputes. The Court held that a common trial is convenient for the management and dismissed the challenge, noting that individual employees must establish their own cases.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of.

The Management, Penar - Vs the Presiding Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.04.2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶3

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.16615 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶4

THE MANAGEMENT PENAR SPECIALITY PRODUCTS (P) LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS KERN ENTERPRISES (P)LTD.) REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR A.SIVAGNANAM, 29/3, VALAYANKULAM-625 022, MADURAI DT.

¶5

... Petitioner -vs-

¶6

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, District Court Building, Madurai-20.

¶7

R.Rajendran

¶8

V.Mokkaraj

¶9

P.Pitchaimani

¶10

C.Muthulingam

¶11

G.Murugan

¶12

R.Ramakrishnan

¶13

M.Pitchai

¶14

C.Kandan

¶15

G.Ayyavoo

¶16

P.Muthu

¶17

V.Pakiaraj

¶18

C.Arumugam

¶19

P.Chinnapandi

¶20

P.Thavapandi

¶21

P.Vellaisamy

¶22

C.Chinnandi

¶23

S.Mani

¶24

A.Ponnampalam

¶25

P.Adaikkan

¶26

P.Chellakannu

¶27

S.Matchakalai

¶28

P.Malayan

¶29

O.Subramanian

¶30

M.Chinnakalai

¶31

P.Balasubramani

¶32

S.Kandarao

¶33

S.Lakshumanan

¶34

M.Chakkaiah

¶35

M.Alagar

¶36

V.Manimuthu

¶37

V.Pitchairaj

¶38

R.Mayilsamy

¶39

K.Chinnakalai

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 35. P.Andi

¶41

S.Kandasamy

¶42

V.Murugan

¶43

¶44

R.Chinnamuthu 39. M.Pilian 40. O.Perumal 41. P.Pandi 42. K.Ramu 43. K.Murugan 44. M.Adikkan 45. K.Subburaj 46. A.Pitchai 47. M.Rajendran 48. M.Periyasamy 49. R.Udayar 50. U.Andi 51. A.Gopal 52. T.Alagar 53. P.Annadurai 54. S.Rasu 55. The Management Indian Syntans Ltd., 29/3, Valayankulam, Madurai-625 022. ... Respondents

¶45

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in the proceedings dated 09.07.2013 in the memo filed in I.D.No.112/1996 and quash the same .

¶46

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivamanogaran For R1 : Mr.R.Velmurugan Govt. Advocate

¶47

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, challenging the order of the Labour Court in allowing joint trial by taking into consideration the common evidence vide proceedings dated 09.07.2013 in the memo filed in I.D.No.112/1996 and to quash the same .

¶48

Though the respondents 2 to 55 have been served and their names were also printed in the cause list, no one represented for them. According to the petitioner, the employees have resigned their services on various dates and raised a dispute stating that they have been verbally terminated and the disputes have also been raised in various years. The petitioner has stated that each individual has given different reasons to contend that they have been forced to resign from services and that amounts to denial of employment. Since each and every person is giving a different story, unless or until those persons are examined by getting them into box to tender evidence, it will be difficult for the petitioner to disprove the allegations, though burden is on the respondents/workmen, who raised the dispute, to establish their case.

¶49

Since the issue raised by the respondents / workmen is that they have been forced to resign their job and that the issue is also common, there is nothing wrong in the Labour Court ordering for a joint trial. At the same time, it is to be remembered that unless an employee gets into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the box and establishes his case individually, appropriate relief cannot be extended to him, as one employee, on behalf of all employees cannot lead evidence to substantiate the case. That apart, it will be

¶50

¶51

convenience for the Management to let in a common evidence with regard to 53 cases. Since the workmen have invited a joint trial with the fond hope of establishing their individual case in the joint trial, they themselves have to be blamed for such thing and not others.

¶52

In view of this, this Court is of the view that there is no need

¶53

to interfere with the order of the Labour court allowing joint trial. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/

¶55

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶56

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, District Court Building, Madurai-20.

¶57

+1cc to M/s.R.Sivamanogaran, Advocate SR.No.17798

¶58

sm:29.04.2015:3P/3C ar

¶59

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.16615 of 2013

¶60

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

The Management, Penar - v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management, Penar - v. the Presiding Officer

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

M. Gandhimathi Vs the Secretary to Government

U. Shanmugham Vs the Commissioner of Technical

Kaviyan School Vs the Direictor of Matriculation

K.Sivanandam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

I.Gayathri Vs the Tamilnadu

M. Ponnammal Vs the District Educational