Partly allowed

The General Manager (Hrm) v. T.Senthil Murugan

Madras HC14 Jun 2023WA/946/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of writ appeals challenging High Court Single Judge orders. The High Court set aside the impugned orders mandating disposal as there were no pending disciplinary proceedings. The court directed the workman Sivaprakasam to pursue the pending Industrial Dispute before the Central Industrial Tribunal, while directing that the other respondent's representation be considered afte

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Writ Proceedings dismissed; Workman Sivaprakasam allowed to pursue Industrial Dispute No.34 of 2015 before Central Industrial Tribunal; Representation of the other responden

The General Manager (Hrm) Vs T.Senthil Murugan — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.A.No.946 of 2015

¶9

W.A.No.946 of 2015:-

¶10

1.The General Manager (HRM) Indian Bank Corporate Office No.254 – 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah

¶11

Chennai – 600 014.

¶12

2.The Chief Manager Indian Bank – Main Branch No.9, Chathiram Street Dindigul – 624 001. ... Appellants Vs.

¶13

T.Senthil Murugan S/o Thiyagarajan ... Respondent

¶14

W.A.No.947 of 2015:-

¶15

1.The General Manager (HRM) Indian Bank Corporate Office No.254 – 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah Chennai – 600 014.

¶16

Page 1/5

¶17

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

¶18

2.The Branch Manager Indian Bank Reddiarpalayam Branch 43, Ground Floor Pondi-Villianur Main Road Reddiarpalayam Puducherry – 605 010.

¶19

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015

¶20

... Appellants

¶21

Vs.

¶22

M.Sivaprakasam S/o Manickam ... Respondent

¶23

Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the orders dated 10.04.2015 made in W.P.Nos.5125 and 5175 of 2015.

¶24

In W.A.No.946 of 2015:-

¶25

For Appellants : Mr.Kalyana Raman for M/s Aiyar & Dolia

¶26

For Respondent : No appearance

¶27

In W.A.No.947 of 2015:-

¶28

For Appellants : Mr.Kalyana Raman for M/s Aiyar & Dolia

¶29

For Respondent : Mrs.M.Sreela

¶30

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶31

The Writ Appeals are directed against the separate orders passed by the

¶32

learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.5125 and 5175 of 2015, filed by the respondents herein.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 2/5

¶35

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015

¶36

2.The factual matrix on which the present Writ Appeals arise is that the respondents allege that they were engaged as Jewel Appraiser on regular basis. But however, they were dis-engaged by the appellant – Bank.

¶37

3.The case of the appellants is that the respondents were not engaged on regular basis as an employee, but on job work basis and therefore, their claim is not maintainable.

¶38

4.In the meanwhile, one of the respondent, viz., Sivaprakasam, raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.34 of 2015 before the Central Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. In that view of the matter, the observation of the learned Single Judge, to conduct an enquiry and pass orders, may not arise at all. In the instant case, there is no disciplinary action or complaint involved and the matter consequently falls on the subject of non – employment or whether it is a contract for job work.

¶39

5.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5175

¶40

of 2015 would submit that as a matter of fact, it was stigmatic termination and

¶41

only complaining thereof, the industrial dispute is raised by the said workman.

¶42

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

¶43

Page 3/5

¶44

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015

¶45

6.Thus, we intend to dispose of the Writ Appeals on the following terms, (i)Since there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the

¶46

respondents, the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside.

¶47

(ii)The Writ Petitioner – Sivaprakasam is entitled to pursue the

¶48

I.D.No.34 of 2015 pending before the Central Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

¶49

7.As far as the other employee – Senthil Murugan, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that depending on the out come of the I.D.No.34 of 2015, his representation will be considered and orders will be

¶50

passed.

¶51

8.The Writ Appeals are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

(J.N.B,J.,) (D.B.C,

¶53

J.,) Index : Yes / No 14.06.2023 Internet : Yes / No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No Jer

¶54

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

¶55

Page 4/5

¶56

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015

¶57

J. NISHA BANU, J., and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J., Jer

¶58

W.A.Nos.946 and 947 of 2015

¶59

14.06.2023

¶60

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

¶61

Page 5/5

The General Manager (Hrm) v. T.Senthil Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager (Hrm) v. T.Senthil Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Devaraj Vs N.Kiruthika

S.P.Janagan Vs S. Premalatha @ Meenakshi

T. Tulasimani Vs P. Rohini

C.S.Adithya Praveen Vs P.Praveena

A.Prasanna Kumar Vs S.Jayalakshmi

Balaji Raghunathan Vs S. Yamini