Allowed

Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC22 Feb 2019WP/366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that when a respondent authority dismisses an application via a non-speaking order after a petitioner raises a jurisdictional objection, the authority must frame a preliminary issue and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity to both sides.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to frame a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs The Special Joint… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:22.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

W.P.NO.366 OF 2019

AND

WMP NO.371 OF 2019

1.M/s.Carborundum Universal Ltd., (Refractories and Prodorite) Super Refractories Division, rep.by its Executive Vice-President 2.M/s.Carborundum Universal Ltd., Super Refractories Division, rep.by its Managing Director ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Commissionarate of Labour, Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Board Building, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006 2.Mr.R.K.Murugan ...Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated 05.03.2018 in TNSE1/I.A.6/2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent, the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Commissionarate of Labour, Chennai-600 006.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ravi

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh,A.G.P. For R1 M/s.Krishnasamy for R2

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the first respondent dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioner Management resisting the appeal filed by the second respondent/employee on the ground that the second respondent was employed in a Factory and therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 will not apply. The first respondent, who is a constituted authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, has dismissed the application filed by the Management by a non-speaking order without consideration of the legal objection raised by the Management. The non-speaking order dated 05.03.2018 is impuged in the present writ petition.

¶15

2.Mr.S.Ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management would submit that although it is a fact that the legal objection has been raised at the beginning of the proceeding before the first respondent, the first respondent, for some reason, has observed that the issue was raised at the fag end of the case and therefore, has proceeded to dispose of the application without dealing with the objection raised by the petitioner Management. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the first respondent may be directed to frame this issue as a preliminary issue, as according to the learned counsel this Court has passed many orders holding that the person employed in the Factory will not come under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and the same shall not be applicable to the Factory employees.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/employee would submit that the application filed by the petitioner Management was found to be without merit and therefore, the same was dismissed by the authority and therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent/employee the Management is only attempting to drag the proceedings by raising such objections.

¶17

4.This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶18

5.When the jurisdiction of the authority himself is questioned by the Management stating that the second respondent was employed in the Factory belonging to the Management and as such, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act would not be applicable to such employees, it is imperative on the part of the first respondent to frame a preliminary issue

¶19

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

¶20

in regard to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the second respondent/employee. Unfortunately, instead of framing preliminary issue and dealing with the same, the first respondent has simply dismissed the I.A. filed by the Management by a non-speaking order.

¶21

6.When a serious objection has been raised on behalf of the petitioner Management about the maintainability of the appeal before the first respondent authority, it is incumbent upon the authority to deal with such issue, since such issue goes to the root of the matter. Unfortunately, the authority has chosen to brush aside the same in a casual manner and dismissed the I.A.filed by the petitioner Management. The order impugned plainly suffers from bereft of any reasons for consideration.

¶22

7.In view of the above, this Court is clearly of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and therefore, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent, who is directed to frame preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the second respondent/employee and deal with the same by affording opportunities to both the Management as well as the second respondent/employee and pass a reasoned order. The first respondent is directed to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. msk Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Commissionarate of Labour, Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Board Building, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006

¶26

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

¶27

+1cc to Mr.S.Krishnasamy, Advocate, S.R.No.16376

¶28

+1cc to M/s.Gupta & Ravi, Advocate, S.R.No.16386

¶29

W.P.No.366 of 2019

¶30

Kak(26/03/2019)

¶31

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

Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrf United Workers Union Vs The Government of Tamil nadu

T.Ganesan Vs Dharmendar Kumar Ips.

Oppantha Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam Vs Union of India

P.Ramasamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Senthil Kumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.N.Chelladurai Vs the Commissioner of Indian