The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

The Management,

¶6

M/s. Singer India Ltd.,
New Delhi – 44. ... Petitioner

¶7

 -vs-

¶8

1. The Presiding Officer,
 Labour Court,
 Coimbatore.

¶9

2. V.A.Sivashankaran... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorari, praying to call for the records pursuant to the
order in I.A. No. 642 of 2011 in I.D. No. 7 of 2006 on the file
of the Labour Court, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr. S.Saravanan

¶12

For Respondents: R1 - Court

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(through video conference)

¶15

Heard Mr. S.Saravanan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. A. Deivasigamani, Learned Counsel for the Second
Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart

¶16

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

¶17

from the pleadings of the parties.

¶18

2.The Second Respondent, who claims to have been
orally terminated from service by the Petitioner, raised an
industrial dispute in I.D. No. 7 of 2006 before the Labour
Court, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as 'Labour Court' for
short) invoking Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter after referred to as 'ID Act' for short) in
which an exparte award dated 17.03.2008 came to be passed. After
the Second Respondent filed a claim petition in C.P. No. 46 of
2009 before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act
for computation of monetary benefits that has fallen due in
terms of the aforesaid award in the industrial dispute, the
Petitioner filed an application under Rule 48(2) of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, for setting aside the
exparte award dated 17.03.2008 in I.D. No. 7 of 2006 before the
Labour Court along with an application in I.A. No. 642 of 2011
to condone the delay of 1278 days in filing the same. The Labour
Court by an order dated 15.02.2012 in I.A. No. 642 of 2011
arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner had not placed any
cause for condoning the delay even for a single day and
dismissed that application, which is assailed in this Writ
Petition.

¶19

3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that
prior to the Second Respondent having approached the Labour
Court in I.D. No. 7 of 2006, he had earlier filed an appeal in
TNSE No. 2 of 2003 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Coimbatore under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act, 1948, pleading that he had been wrongfully
deprived of employment by the Petitioner, but the same had been
refused to be entertained on noticing that the Second Respondent
had been only transferred by the Petitioner from its Branch
Office at Pollachi to its Regional Office at Chennai by an order
dated 21.04.2003 which cannot be construed as any termination of
service. It is highlighted that in suppression of such material
fact which has bearing on the question of permissibility to re-
agitate the same matter before another forum, the Second
Respondent has obtained the exparte award in the industrial
dispute in I.D. No. 7 of 2006 from the Labour Court. It is
further contended that the Company of the Petitioner had become
a sick industrial concern and proceedings for its re-
construction were where underway during the relevant point of

¶20

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

¶21

time on account of which it was not in a position to properly
contest the proceedings in the industrial dispute raised by the
Second Respondent before the Labour Court and steps had been
taken to set aside the exparte award passed therein after
receipt of notice in C.P. No. 46 of 2009 from the Labour Court.
Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent justifies the impugned
order by emphasizing that there has not been any acceptable
explanation from the Petitioner for condoning the inordinate
delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte award.

¶22

4.Having regard to the rival submissions, when it
was pointed out that it was incumbent upon the Second Respondent
to have truthfully placed the proceedings of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act, 1947 in TNSE No. 2 of 2003 before the Labour
Court while recording evidence in I.D. No. 7 of 2006, which does
not appear to have been carried out, even though the Petitioner
had remained exparte, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent
fairly accepted that the exparte award dated 17.03.2008 in I.D.
No. 7 of 2006 passed by the Labour Court may be set aside and
the matter remitted for fresh determination by compensating the
Second Respondent with adequate costs, which has been fixed at
Rs. 50,000/-. In furtherance thereof, Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has handed over Demand Draft bearing No. 262130 dated
18.10.2021 drawn on Indian Bank, Madras High Court Branch,
Chennai for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Second Respondent and
Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent has acknowledged its
receipt by filing memo dated 08.10.2021 to that effect, which is
placed on record.

¶23

5.In view of such concordance reached between the
parties to shorten litigation and avert further protraction of
the proceedings indefinitely, this Court in the exercise of
plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution coupled
with superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, sets aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2012 in
I.A. No. 642 of 2011 as well as the exparte award dated
17.03.2008 in I.D. No. 7 of 2006 passed by the Labour Court. The
industrial dispute in I.D. No. 7 of 2006 shall stand restored to
file and shall be listed for next hearing on 29.11.2021 before
the Labour Court. The Petitioner shall file its Counter in I.D.
No. 7 of 2006, if not already done earlier, on that date. The
parties or their respective Counsel shall attend the hearing on

¶24

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

¶25

the said date as well as on the subsequent dates to which it is
adjourned and shall extend their co-operation for expeditious
adjudication of the industrial dispute. After affording full
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned following the
prescribed procedure in consonance with the principles of
natural justice, the Labour Court shall deal with each of the
contentions raised by the parties and shall pass reasoned orders
on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the
decision taken to the concerned parties under written
acknowledgment. It shall be ensured that there is atleast one
effective hearing every week showing progress of the case and
monthly reports in that regard shall be sent to the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court till the matter is finally disposed.
Though obvious, it is made clear that no view has been expressed
by this Court on the merits of the controversy involved in the
industrial dispute.

¶26

In the upshot, the Writ Petition is ordered on the
aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.

¶27

 Sd/-

¶28

 Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

vjt/skr

¶32

To

¶33

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶34

Copy to

¶35

1. The Managing Director,

¶36

M/s. Singer India Ltd., New Delhi - 44.

¶37

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

¶38

2. V.A. Sivashankaran,
 S/o. Chellappan,
 No. 8/100, Gandhiji Road,
 Krishna Nagar,
 Podanur,
 Coimbatore – 22.

¶39

3. The Registrar (Judicial)
 High Court, Madras.

¶40

W.P. No. 10758 of 2012

¶41

GPL(CO)
SB(09/11/2021)

¶42

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

The Management v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management 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

B.Ramkumar Adityan Vs Principal Secretary

N.Ramachandran Vs M/s.City Union Bank Ltd.

M/S.Gemini Film Circuit Vs M/S.Venkateswara Financiers

Thiru.Pradeep K.Mohan Vs the Inspector of Plantations

Selliamman Constructions Vs the Enforcement Officer

P.Sugumar, Mettur Street Vs the Presiding Officer