Allowed

Puducherry Project Implementation v. The Chief Secretary cum Chairman

Madras HC17 Feb 2021WP/18977/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought a writ of mandamus to maintain status quo ante regarding union members' employment pending conciliation proceedings. The court directed the management to cease disengaging workers and maintain status quo, citing violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to maintain Status Quo Ante prior to the dispute till the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings.

Puducherry Project Implementation Vs The Chief… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :17.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.18977 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.23529 of 2020

¶6

Puducherry Project Implementation Agency Employees Union (Reg.No.1852/TRU/2019) No.7-B, Moovendhar Veedhi Mullai Nagar, Urulaiyanpettai, Pudhcerry-5 rep. By its Secretary Mr.Sivamadan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman Project Implementation Agency Government of Puducherry 5^th floor, 100 feet road, P.K.C.Educational Complex Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605005

¶7

2.The Project Director Project Implementation Agency Government of Puducherry 5^th floor, 100 feet road P.K.C.Educational Complex, Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605 005

¶8

The Labour Officer (Conciliation) Puducherry

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to maintain status quo ante with regard to the employment of the members of the Petitioner Union, whose name are given in the List of Members filed in this writ petition as existed prior to the dispute on which conciliation proceedings were initiated by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings No.104/LO(C)/ AIL/2020 dated 15.10.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.G.Djearany, Govt.Pldr(Puducherry)

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to maintain status quo ante with regard to employment of the members of the petitioner's union during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings.

¶16

Admittedly the conciliation proceedings were initiated from 15.10.2020. The matter was seized of by the Conciliation Officer and discussion was going on . On 15.10.2020, Conciliation Officer adjourned the matter to 20.10.2020 and thereafter to 30.10.2020. Whereas the management has disengaged the workers and instructed them not to report to duty with effect from 30.10.2020. Such act is contrary to the Sec.9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 9147(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

¶17

Considering the same, the Conciliation Officer in his proceedings dated 06.11.2020 has directed the management to maintain “Status Quo Ante” prior to the dispute and make an amicable settlement in this regard and posted for further negotiation on 11.11.2020. In spite of the same the management has continued to disengage the workers during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. The non abstante clause under Sec.9-A of the Act makes issuance of notice mandatory to effect change in service conditions of workers and also imposes a prohibition to effect the change in service conditions within 21 days of Notice. No material has been produced before this Court to show that the mandatory procedure was followed. Lest, can there be 21 days notice between 15.10.2020 and 30.10.2020. Besides all the mandatory requirement, the matter has been seized of by the Conciliation Officer and anything done without placing the materials before the authority will lead us to draw an adverse inference that the management is attempting to dilute the conciliatory process and adopting unfair labour practices. Since the conciliation is still under process, it is incumbent upon the management to maintain “Status Quo Ante” as directed by the Conciliation Officer.

¶18

Accordingly, a direction is given to the respondents 1 and 2 to maintain “Status Quo Ante” prior to the dispute till the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings.

¶19

Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

To 1.The Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman Project Implementation Agency Government of Puducherry 5^th floor, 100 feet road, P.K.C.Educational Complex Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605005 2.The Project Director Project Implementation Agency Government of Puducherry 5^th floor, 100 feet road P.K.C.Educational Complex, Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605 005 3. The Labour Officer (Conciliation) Puducherry. +1cc to the Government Pleader(Puducherry) SR.9575 W.P.No.18977 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.23529 of 2020 SSV(CO) CB(23/03/2021)

¶25

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

Puducherry Project Implementation v. The Chief Secretary cum Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puducherry Project Implementation v. The Chief Secretary cum Chairman

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

M/S. Nuva Machine Works Vs The Authorized Officer

Fullerton India Credit co.Ltd Vs The Deputy Director

N.Murugesan Vs the Special Officer

A.Abdul Azeez Vs R.Ponmudi

M.Padmini Vs The State Information Commissioner

K.Marimuthu Vs The Commissioner