Disposed

M/s.Khec Technologies (India) v. Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC8 Sept 2022OP/1041/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking implementation of an Industrial Tribunal award. It held that Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act provides an efficacious remedy for execution of awards, making the writ proceeding not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach Industrial Tribunal for execution of the award.

M/s.Khec Technologies (India) Vs Corporation of Chennai — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.754 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.09.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

Writ Petition No.754 of 2017 &

¶7

W.M.P.No.786 of 2017

¶8

N.M.R.Employees Union (Regn.No.910 NAT) Tiruppathur Co-operative Sugar Mills Kethandapatti Vellore District - 635 815 Represented by its Secretary M.Kumar

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries (Mic.2) Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009

¶12

The Commissioner of Sugar No.474, Anna Salai Chennai - 600 035

¶13

The Managing Director Tirupattur Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd., No.TS-01 Kethandapatti - 635 815 Vellore District

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.No.754 of 2017

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Award dated 29.12.2016 in I.D.No.7/2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai - 140 and desist from making appointment of outsiders other than the members of the petitioner union in the vacant posts notified on 27.10.2016 or in any other vacant posts.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muthukumaran

¶20

For Respondents : Nr.S.balamurugan Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2

¶21

Mr.R.Balaramesh for R3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to implement the award dated 29.12.2016 in I.D.No.7/2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai - 140 and desists the respondents from making appointment of outsiders other than the members of the petitioner Union in the vacant posts notified on 27.10.2016 or in any other vacant posts.

¶24

The petitioner is N.M.R.Employees Union. A writ petition

¶25

seeking regularization of services of the workmen cannot be entertained

¶26

if filed by the Union. In the present case, the Union rightly approached

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P.No.754 of 2017

¶30

the Industrial Tribunal and obtained award in I.D.No.7/2015 and the

¶31

present writ petition is filed thereafter to implement the award.

¶32

Regarding the implementation of the award passed by the

¶33

Labour Court or Tribunal, Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act contemplates that “ a Labour Court or a Tribunal shall have the power of a civil court to execute its own award as a decree of a civil court and also to execute any settlement as defined in clause (p) of section 2 as a

¶34

decree”.

¶35

In the present case, the award has been passed in favour of the Union. Thus, an execution petition is maintainable under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and no writ is entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there is an efficacious remedy contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act for execution of its award by following the procedures as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. When an efficacious remedy is contemplated under the Statute, the parties aggrieved are bound to approach the said forum before approaching the High Court by way of writ proceedings. In the present case, the award has been passed on 29.12.2016 and therefore, the

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P.No.754 of 2017

¶39

Union has to approach the Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of execution of its award in the manner known to law. Contrarily, the writ Court cannot adjudicate the issues regarding the reinstatement or regularization, as the case may be. In the present case, regularization as such sought for by the Union on behalf of its members cannot be adjudicated elaborately, which requires scrutinization of documents and ascertain the eligibility and other conditions stipulated for regularization. It is not as if High Court can issue a blanket direction to regularize the services of the employees based on the award which requires certain other consideration with reference to the documents which cannot be undertaken in a writ proceedings.

¶40

Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal for execution of its own award by filing an application. In the event of filing any such application, the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning the delay, if any and issues are to be adjudicated on merits, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

With the above direction, the writ petition stand disposed of. No

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/6

W.P.No.754 of 2017

costs.

19.09.2022

Index:Yes Speaking order gpa To

¶48

The Secretary to Government Government of Tamilnadu Industries (Mic.2) Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009

¶49

The Commissioner of Sugar No.474, Anna Salai Chennai - 600 035

¶50

The Managing Director Tirupattur Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd., No.TS-01 Kethandapatti - 635 815 Vellore District

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5/6

¶53

W.P.No.754 of 2017

¶54

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶55

gpa

¶56

W.P.No.754 of 2017& W.M.P.No.786 of 2017

¶57

19.09.2022

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

6/6

M/s.Khec Technologies (India) v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Khec Technologies (India) v. Corporation of Chennai

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.Suresh Vs M/s.Aiyanars Ventures, a Partnership Firm, and 2 others

M.Suresh, S/o. N.Muthumalai Nadar, Vs M/s Aiyanars Ventures, a partnership firm

M/s Sri.Meenakshi Sundareswarar Constructions, Vs The Superintending Engineer

M/s.Swami Green Energy Private Limited Vs Rajesh Lakhoni,Ias.

M/S.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs Mr.Durga Sankar Barik and Another

D.Sivakarthikeyan Vs K.E.Gnanavelraja and 2 others