Mitubha sical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tamilselvan
Case brief
What is this about?
This writ petition challenged a one-line order by the II Addl. Labour Court dismissing a preliminary issue on workman status without evidence. The High Court quashed the order and directed the Labour Court to allow parties to lead evidence. Outcome: Writ allowed. Gigant: an order that the Labour Court is liable to interfere with an order that has been passed without applying of mind. The Labour Co
What did the court decide?
Impugned order of Labour Court set aside; Labour Court directed to allow parties to lead evidence and pass a reasoned order.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 18.02.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P. NO. 4519 OF 2019 AND W.M.P. NO. 5093 OF 2019
Mitsubha Sical India Pvt. Ltd. No.8, Sipcot Industrial complex Gummidipoondi Thiruvallore District 601 201. .. Petitioner
Tamilselvan .. Respondent
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 1.3.2018 in I.A. No.97 of 2016 in I.D. No.435 of 2015 passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, and quash the same as being illegal, perverse, arbitrary and unjust and direct the II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, to consider the question of merits in I.A. No.97 of 2016 in I.D. No.435 of 2015 on its file allowing the parties to let in evidence.
For Petitioner : Mr. Sundar Mohan for M/s.S.Mekhala
ORDER
The Management is the petitioner before this Court. Challenge is made to the order passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai in I.A. No.97 of 2016 in I.D. No.435 of 2015 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner/Management seeking to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent is a workman or not under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is working as supervisor and earning more than Rs.40,000/-. The respondent herein was issued with a charge memo dated 13.5.13 and a domestic enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was filed on 10.6.14. On the basis of the findings in the enquiry, wherein the charges levelled against the respondent were held proved, after due process of law, the respondent was dismissed from service on 31.7.14.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the preliminary issue regarding the definition of a workman without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Whether the one-line order passed by the Labour Court exhibited a total non-application of mind requiring interference at the admission stage.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mitsubha Sical India Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
Tamilselvan
Coram
V. Parthiban
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court