Allowed

Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam (Regn.No. 504/ Cpt), v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Feb 2020WP/25823/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate to enforce conciliation proceedings. Directed the Government to refer the industrial dispute to a competent authority within four weeks of the order, noting that the conciliation officer had already filed a failure report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to refer the dispute to a competent forum within four weeks of the order's receipt.

Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam (Regn.No. 504/ Cpt)… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.25823 of 2019

¶6

Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam (Reg.No.504/CPT) Rep. by its General Secretary Mr.S.Kannan No.77, 2nd Floor, A.J.Complex Sriperumbuthur - 602 105.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary Labour and Employment Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Labour Teynampet, Chennai-6.

¶11

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

4.Dinesh Engineering Industries Rep. by its Managing Director Vulundhai Village, Tiruvallur Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to complete the conciliation proceedings pending in 2K dispute raised by the petitioner-Union in Na.Ka.No.418 of 2018 dated 10.05.2018 within a time frame fixed by this Court and submit a report to the 1st respondent in case of not being able to come to any settlement between the petitioner-Union and the 4th respondent, thereby direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication and to pass necessary orders under Section 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Karl Marx

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 NA for R4

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to complete the conciliation proceedings pending in 2K dispute raised by the petitioner-Union in Na.Ka.No.418 of 2018 dated 10.05.2018 within a time frame fixed by this Court and submit a report to the 1st respondent and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication and to pass necessary orders under Section 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶20

When the matter was taken up on earlier occasion, there was no representation for the 4th respondent. Today also, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, there is no representation for the 4th respondent.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶22

It is represented by both sides that the conciliation proceedings are over and the conciliation officer has also filed the failure report to the first respondent on 22.07.2019.

¶23

Therefore, it is for the first respondent/Government to act accordingly and make a reference to the competent authority for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Since the failure report dated 22.07.2019 has already been sent to the first respondent/Government, this Writ Petition is disposed of, only with a direction to the first respondent to make reference of the subject matter dispute before the competent forum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the first respondent to pass necessary orders under Section 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶25

Needless to say that if any order under Section 10(B) is to be passed by the first respondent, the same shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 4th respondent. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶34

2.The Commissioner of Labour Teynampet, Chennai-6.

¶35

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.Karl Marx, Advocate, S.R.No. 14169

¶37

W.P.No.25823 of 2019

¶38

PVS(CO) GN(13/03/2020)

¶39

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

Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam (Regn.No. 504/ Cpt), v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam (Regn.No. 504/ Cpt), v. State 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

P.Vetrivelu Vs The District Collector

S.Duraiswamy Vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner

The Management Vs M.Mahathai

P.Rajakannu Vs The Management

Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Marimuthu Enterprises Vs The Regional Provident Fund