Dismissed

G. Mohan Rao v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC30 Oct 2019WP/38506/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order dismissing claim petitions regarding salary deductions. The Court held that an industrial dispute was raised and the matter must be decided under industrial dispute machinery due to lack of pre-existing right under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The challenged order dated 10.01.2001 was confirmed and the writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

G. Mohan Rao Vs the Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 30.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.38506 of 2002

¶6

G.Mohan Rao 2. J.Prabhu 3. P.Madhalingam 4. G.Pavithran 5. M.Abraham 6. P.Ravikumar 7. U.Vijaya 8. K.Jagadeesan

¶7

P.Sudhakaran 10. P.Sankaralingam 11. K.Mageswari 12. Juliet Sagayarani 13. Y.Yasodhammal 14. K.R.Manikandan

¶8

H.Santhi 16. P.Sundaram 17. N.Kembaraj 18. K.Chelladurai 19. P.Rahamadhulla 20. K.R.Pellan 21. N.Subramani 22. K.R.Ravi 23. M.P.Dhatchayani 24. K.Magendran 25. C.Geetha 26. K.Neelamegam 27. P.Rajamani 28. P.Krishnan 29. S.Rajakani 30. S.Magesh 31. P.Eswaran 32. N.P.Mohan 33. H.Abdul Ajoos 34. P.K.Vijayan 35. S.Ragupathy 36. K.Paulraj 37. N.Lakshmanan 38. E.Ramakrishnan 39. M.Bathra Bagadhur

¶9

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

¶10

M.Top Bagadhur 41. Kattaga Bagadhur 42. B.R.Belliraj 43. H.N.Raju 44. R.Udhayakumar 45. K.B.Vasantharaj 46. K.P.Prakash 47. E.K.Kandasamy 48. R.Eswaran 49. A.Sugumar 50. J.Pojan 51. K.Natarajan 52. K.Hallan 53. B.Hallan 54. M.Rangaraj 55. V.Noor Mohamed 56. G.Subramani ...Petitioners ..Vs.. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2. The Management of Nilgiris District, Plantation Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Rokeby, Coonoor, Nilgiris District. ... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the common order dated 10.01.2001 passed by the first respondent in C.P.Nos.391 to 404 of 1999, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay the petitioners the amount as claimed in the C.Ps. together with the interest, award costs.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For Respondents : Labour Court (for R.1) No Appearance (for R.2) ORDER

¶13

The order dated 10.01.2001 passed by the first respondent in C.P.Nos.391 to 404 of 1999 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶14

2.The writ petitioners were the employees of the second respondent/the Management of Nilgiris District Plantation

¶15

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

¶16

Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The wages and other conditions of service of workmen are governed by the settlements entered into between the workmen and the second respondent under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said settlement was given effect from 01.07.1988. However, the monetary benefits flowing out of the settlement was given effect only from 01.07.1989. The period of the above settlement expired on 30.06.1994.

¶17

3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that there was a deduction from the salary with effect from March, 1998 till the date of filing of the Claim Petition before the Labour Court, i.e., for about 17 months to the tune of Rs.250/- per month amounting to Rs.4,250/-. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that such a deduction from the salary of the workmen is illegal and violation of the settlement conditions. He further submitted that no notice or opportunity was given to the employees and further deduction from the salary was not justified.

¶18

4.The Labour Court adjudicated the issues and arrived at a conclusion that in respect of the wage deduction and the other grievances, an industrial dispute was raised and therefore issues are to be decided in that industrial dispute. Contrarily, the claim petition was filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is not maintainable, as the disputed issues of the workmen cannot be decided under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the purpose of filing the claim petition under Section 33-C(2), the workmen have to establish that there is a pre-existing right and in the event of not establishing any such pre-existing right, Section 33-C(2) cannot be invoked by the Labour Court.

¶19

5.In the present writ petition, there was deduction in the salaries of the writ petitioners on account of certain disputes in respect of the settlement. An industrial dispute has been raised in this regard and therefore the claim petition filed is without jurisdiction and cannot be entertained. The Labour Court in its findings categorically arrived at a conclusion that whether the workmen are entitled for deducted amount or not has to be decided in an industrial dispute. The writ petitioners have not established any pre-existing right under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, there is no error in respect of the findings that there should a pre-existing right for entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

¶20

6.This being the factum, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as such sought for and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly,

¶21

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

¶22

the order dated 10.01.2001 passed by the first respondent in C.P.No.391 to 404/1999 is confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
2.The Management of Nilgiris District,
Plantation Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,
Rokeby, Coonoor,Nilgiris District.
+1cc to Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, Advocate Sr.90188
W.P.No.38506 of 2002
pvs[co]
srg 06/12/2019

¶24

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

G. Mohan Rao v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Mohan Rao 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

Tamilaga Kattida Thozhila- Vs The Secretary

G.Udayakumar, Vs v.Muthusamy

The Commr. Salem City Municipa Vs 1.TMT.DHANABAKKIAM W/O.Palani

The Management of Anai Mudi Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S Santhi Casting Works Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Hubbathalai Tea Factory Vs K. Moorthy