Disposed

N.Murali v. Regional Labour Commissioner

Madras HC27 Apr 2016WP/14252/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Regional Labour Commissioner to initiate conciliation proceedings regarding the petitioner's termination by the bank. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner with a fresh representation; upon appearance, the Commissioner must commence proceedings and notify the bank.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent with a fresh representation; the first respondent must then commence conciliation proceedings within three weeks.

N.Murali Vs Regional Labour Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.14252 of 2016 &

¶6

W.M.P.No.12447 of 2016

¶7

N.Murali .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner,
26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Branch Manager,
Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
100, Gandhi Road,
Srirangam, Trichy-620 006. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to commence Conciliation Proceedings forthwith in respect of the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner in connection with the order of termination of his service dated 24.03.2016 issued by the second respondent and consequently direct the second respondent to await the resolution of the said Industrial Dispute before giving effect to the said order of termination.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajkumar

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Sathiya Mohan for R2 O R D E R

¶11

Heard Mr.G.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.R.Sathiya Mohan, learned counsel, accepting notice on behalf of the second respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to commence Conciliation Proceedings forthwith in respect of the Industrial Dispute raised by him in connection with the order of termination of his service dated 24.03.2016 issued by the second respondent and consequently direct the second respondent to await the resolution of the said Industrial Dispute before giving effect to the said order of termination.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's service has been dispensed with by the second respondent Bank. This according to the petitioner is illegal. In this regard, the petitioner has filed a compliant before the first respondent under Section 2(k) read with 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶15

It appears that the said complaint was sent by registered post. However, it is seen that there is no acknowledgment produced by the petitioner to show that the complaint has been received by the first respondent. In any event, the petitioner could have appeared in person before the first respondent and presented the petition. However, since the petitioner has not done so, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent along with a copy of this order and the copy of a fresh representation, which shall be received by the first respondent and thereafter, the first respondent shall proceed in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date on which, the petitioner appears before the first respondent. It is needless to say if the first respondent commences the Conciliation Proceedings, notice should be sent to the second respondent.

¶16

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006.

¶22

W.P.No.14252 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.12447 of 2016

¶23

GJ II [co]
srg(11/05/2016)

¶24

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

N.Murali v. Regional Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Murali v. Regional Labour Commissioner

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

V.Karuppusamy Vs Deputy Registrar of Coop.

M/s. Ksm Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Commissioner

The Management, Vs Presiding Officer

A.Thomas Vs The Assistant Pf Commissioner

G. Shanmugam Vs The District Collector

B.Muthulakshmi Vs The Executive Engineer