Dismissed

Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, v. the I Additional Labour Court

Madras HC23 Oct 2018WP/19059/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging a reinstatement order on preliminary grounds. The Court held that non-compliance with the directive to pay wages under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the petitioner ineligible for a hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the order to pay wages, without an opportunity to argue on merits. Costs were not awarded.

Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, Vs the I Additional… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 23.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P. NO. 19059 OF 2010 AND

¶6

M.P. NO. 1 OF 2010

¶7

Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. New No.56 (Old No.58) Ellis Road

¶8

Chennai 600 002. .. Petitioner - Vs - 1. The I Addl. Labour Court Chennai. 2. P.Subramani .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the award dated 23.2.2010 made in I.D. No.260/2007 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. T.P.Manoharan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr. K.Elango for R-2

¶12

R1- Court

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner/Management has filed the writ petition challenging the order of reinstatement.

¶15

It is to be pointed out that when the order of the Labour Court is challenged by the Management, it is the duty on the part of the Management to pay wages u/s 17 (b) to the workman/2^nd respondent herein. Despite the Court directing the Management to pay the wages u/s 17 (b) to the workman on 3.10.2018, till date the Management has not chosen to comply with the order passed by this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management submits that the notice sent to the party by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due did not evoke any response from the Management. However, the learned counsel submits that he is

¶17

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

¶18

ready and willing to argue the case on merits.

¶19

Be that as it may. The preliminary issue that falls for consideration is whether the party, who has disobeyed the orders passed by the Court is entitled to be heard on merits.

¶20

The provision under the Industrial Disputes Act for a direction to the Management to pay the wages to the workman u/s 17 (b) of the said Act has a social purpose to serve. The object of granting wages u/s 17 (b) is to enable the workman, who is facing an order of dismissal, to sustain himself and be competent enough to appear before this Court and contest the case against him. When such being the object of the enactment and if the order passed directing payment of wages u/s 17 (b) is not complied with, it is to be presumed that the workman will not be in a position to come and defend his case. Further, a party, who has not complied with the order passed by the Court is not entitled to an hearing of its case on merits.

¶21

In such circumstances, when the conduct of the Management itself shows scant regard and disrespect to the order passed by this Court and further there being no response to the notice issued by its counsel, then the inference that is to be drawn is that the petitioner is not interested to contest the case on merits.

¶22

In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for hearing of the writ petition on merits and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

GLN

¶24

TO 1.The Ist Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.K.elango, Advocate, S.R.No. 72520

¶26

RV(CO) GN(19/12/2018)

¶27

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

Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, v. the I Additional Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, v. the I Additional Labour Court

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

Jayankondam Panchayat Vs the Presiding Officer

The General Manager, Vs K.Ilango

Breeks Memorial Anglo Indian, Vs State Rep. by

The Management Vs Kannayiram, 4/5 Pillaiyar

The Management Vs Mr.P.Samuel

The Management of Vs Robert Belaremin William