Disposed

Mrf United Workers Union v. The Government of Tamil nadu

Madras HC21 Feb 2019WP/4970/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to conclude industrial dispute conciliation proceedings within two weeks. The Court also directed a status quo to protect workmen's interests and ordered submission of a report under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act if conciliation fails.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude conciliation within two weeks; status quo maintained; order to submit report under Section 12 Industrial Disputes Act upon failure.

Mrf United Workers Union Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 21.02.2019

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶3

MRF United Workers Union rep. By its General Secretary No.100/1122, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru 2^nd Street, Sholingur Road Arakkonam 631 001. .. Petitioner - Vs -

¶4

The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary Department of Labour & Employment Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour I (Conciliation), Vellore.

¶5

The Management of MRF Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director Ichiputhur, Arakkonam Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶6

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of labour I, Conciliation, Vellore to conclude the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner union on 20.11.2018 bearing Ref. No.NA.KA. No.603/2018 within such time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and in the event of failure of conciliation direct the conciliation officer to forward the necessary report required under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Government of Tamil Nadu, the 1^st respondent and further direct the 1^st respondent Government of Tamil Nadu to pass orders with regard to the reference of the Industrial Dispute.

¶7

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

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of labour I, Conciliation, Vellore to conclude the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner union on 20.11.2018 bearing Ref. No.NA.KA. No.603/2018 within such time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and in the event of failure of conciliation direct the conciliation officer to forward the necessary report required under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Government of Tamil Nadu, the 1^st respondent and further direct the 1^st respondent Government of Tamil Nadu to pass orders with regard to the reference of the Industrial Dispute.

¶10

According to Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner herein, the workman, T.Ramesh, was issued with a charge memorandum on 30.6.17 and in pursuance to the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted. On conclusion of the enquiry, second show cause notice was issued. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry officer acted in a biased manner and, therefore, the conclusion reached by him is lopsided. There was no impartial enquiry conducted against the said workman and, therefore, demand has been raised by the Union for change of enquiry officer, which is pending before the 2^nd respondent. Unfortunately, before conclusion of the conciliation proceeding, if any action is taken by the Management adversely against the interest of the workman, the family of the workman will suffer great hardship and it will take years for the workman concerned to remedy the situation. Therefore, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that till the conciliation is concluded by the 2^nd respondent, the interest of the workman concerned should be protected, failing which the workman will suffer irreparable loss and hardship, which cannot be compensated, particularly in view of the fact that the litigation, either before the industrial adjudicator or before this Court will take long years to be concluded.

¶11

Mr.J.Ramesh, learned Addl. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Anand, learned counsel representing M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. takes notice on behalf of the 3^rd respondent.

¶12

Mr.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Management/3^rd respondent submits that this Court may direct the 2^nd respondent to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible so that the the entire dispute, as raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, could be given a quietus as the 2^nd respondent would be in a position to take a

¶13

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

¶14

decision in regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner/Union on behalf of its member.

¶15

To the above submission, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to the 2^nd respondent for early conclusion of the conciliation proceedings in pursuance to the dispute raised by the petitioner.

¶16

In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court feels that in the fitness of things, the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :-

¶17

i) The 2^nd respondent is directed to conclude the conciliation proceedings pursuant to the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner on 20.11.18 bearing Ref. No.NA.KA. No.603/2018 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

ii) In case there is any failure in the conciliation proceedings before the 2^nd respondent, necessary report may be forwarded to the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶19

The above direction is given by this Court at the time of admission itself for the reason that notice of conciliation has already been issued to the 3^rd respondent on 26.11.18, i.e., on the date when the dispute was raised and on 4.1.19, the 3^rd respondent/Management has also responded to the conciliation notice.

¶20

In view of the direction given as above for conclusion of the conciliation proceedings within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, there shall be an order of status quo as on date till the conciliation is concluded as per the above directions.

¶21

This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

GLN

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Secretary Department of Labour & Employment Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶29

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour I (Conciliation), Vellore.

¶30

W.P. NO. 4970 OF 2019

¶31

MG(CO)
rrs 22/02/2019

¶32

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

Mrf United Workers Union v. The Government of Tamil nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrf United Workers Union v. The Government of Tamil nadu

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

S.K.Sampath, Vs the State Transport Authority

A.Prem Vs The District Collector

P.Thiruvengadam Vs The District Collector

T.Ganesan Vs Dharmendar Kumar Ips.

Oppantha Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam Vs Union of India

Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour