Dismissed

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga v. Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC19 Jan 2017WP/44775/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for unwarranted interference with peaceful demonstrations inside an export processing zone and at a factory. The Court held that strikes or agitations inside the zone require authority sanction and must be conducted outside the zone without hindrance to others, allowing legal action for violations.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioners required permission for agitation/strike inside the zone and must conduct it outside the zone without hindrance to other units.

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Vs Commissioner of Labour — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.44775 & 44776 of 2016 & W.M.P.Nos.38614 & 38615 of 2016 & 1374 of 2017 in W.P.No.44775 of 2016

¶6

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Uzhiyargal Matrum Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam Rep by its President No.15 Kannan Street, Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045 ... Petitioner in both Wps Vs. 1.Commissioner of Labour DMS Compound Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006 2.The Development Commissioner Special Economic Zone Madras Export Processing Zone Tambaram Sanatoriam Chennai - 600 045 3.Assistant Commissioner of Police Tambaram, Chennai - 45 ... Respondents in both WPs 4.Venture Lighting India Limited Rep by its Managing Director Plot No. A30 ,D5 Phase II Zone B Madras Export Processing Zone Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. ... 4th Respondent in WP.44775/2016

¶7

4.PMI Engineering Exports Pvd. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director B-29, Phase II Madras Export Processing Zone Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045

¶8

... 4th Respondent in WP.44776/2016

¶9

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the 2nd and 3rd respondents or any person from any

¶10

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

¶11

way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful demonstration inside 2nd respondent MEPZ premises and outside the factory of 4th respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Stalin

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 (in both the WPs)

¶14

Mr.G.Shanthi Meenakshi - for R2 (in both the WPs)

¶15

Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan - for R4 in W.P.No.44776/2016

¶16

Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Cousnel for Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan - for R4 in W.P.No.44775/2016

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These writ petitions have been filed seeking Writ of mandamus forbearing the 2nd and 3rd respondents from any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful demonstration inside 2nd respondent MEPZ premises and outside the factory of 4th respondent.

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Special Government Pleader has brought to the notice of the court the counter filed by the second respondent. A reading of the counter affidavit particularly, paragraph 16 of the same would make it clear that the demonstration carried on by the petitioner's men are obstructing the pathway and quite close to many other units in the zone.

¶20

In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, as the petitioner is working inside the MEPZ Zone, if they wanted to agitate their grievance or to carry on any strike, they can do so, only after obtaining necessary permission or sanction from the necessary authorities concerned. It is also made clear that the same can be carried on only outside the MEPZ Zone without doing any hindrance to other units inside the said zone. It is further made clear that the authorities are at liberty to take any action against the protesters in accordance with law, if they violate any condition stipulated by the authorities concerned or indulge in any illegal act.

¶21

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

¶22

4.These writ petitions are disposed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar
smi
To
1.The Commissioner of Labour
DMS Compound
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006
2.The Development Commissioner
Special Economic Zone
Madras Export Processing Zone
Tambaram Sanatoriam
Chennai - 600 045
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Tambaram, Chennai - 45
+2cc's to Mr.G.Shanthi Meenakshi, Advocate, S.R.Nos.3826 & 3827
+2cc's to Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, Advocate, S.R.No.3798
+2cc's to M/s.Row and Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.4016
+1cc to Mr.S.Ravindran, Advocate, S.R.No.3908
W.P.Nos.44775 & 44776 of 2016
UG(CO)
CA(24/01/2017)

¶26

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

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga v. Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga v. Commissioner of Labour

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

H.Harimurugesan Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Sree Saraswathi Mills Ltd. Vs The Tahsildar

R.Sundaramoorthy Vs The District Collector

T.Ramanathan, Vs The Secretary

C.Thamizh Maran, Vs The Inspector General of

P.Selvakumar Vs The District Collector