Partly allowed

The General Manager v. The Division Secretary

Madras HC18 Jul 2023WP/19973/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madras High Court modified an Industrial Dispute Award relating to staffing and vacancies. The Court held that certain wage and benefit claims were purely policy matters beyond the Tribunal's scrutiny but directed the rail management to implement reasonable claims within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Award is modified: the petitioner directed to implement claims except Clauses 6 and 7 within 8 weeks.

The General Manager Vs The Division Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19973 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.19973 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.17221 of 2016

¶8

The General Manager, Southern Railways, Chennai – 600 003.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Division Secretary,

¶12

All India Station Masters Association, Room No.10, Ananda Buildings,

¶13

3, Station Road,

¶14

West Mambalam,

¶15

Chennai – 600 033.

¶16

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), No.26, Haddows Road, Sastri Bhavan,

¶17

Chennai – 600 006.

¶18

The Presiding Officer,

¶19

Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, First Floor, “B” Wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,

¶20

Chennai – 600 006.

¶21

...Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the third

¶23

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

¶24

Page 1 of 6

¶25

W.P.No.19973 of 2016

¶26

respondent in I.D.No.36 of 2011 and quash the order passed therein dated 28.02.2013.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.L.Chandrakumar [R1]

¶29

No Appearance [R2]

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of

¶32

certiorari to quash the order passed by the third respondent in I.D.No.36 of 2011 dated 28.02.2013.

¶33

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is an Association of Station Masters, who are not recognized and registered by Railways as a Trade Union. With regard to certain demands, the first respondent Association filed a claim statement and raised Industrial Dispute against the petitioner in I.D.No.36 of 2011 before the third respondent Tribunal. The third respondent vide Award dated 28.02.2013 passed the directed the petitioner Management to consider the request of the 1 st respondent Association for filling up the vacancies. Seeking to implement the Award passed by the Labour Court, the 1 st respondent made a complaint

¶34

before the 2 nd respondent, who in turn passed the impugned letter in

¶35

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

¶36

Page 2 of 6

¶37

W.P.No.19973 of 2016

¶38

No.M.90/AISMA/Complaint/2016-B2 dated 02.05.2016 directing the Railways to implement the Award dated 28.02.2013 on or before 15.05.2016 failing which, appropriate action will be taken u/s.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶39

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the demands raised by the 1 st respondent Association is within the domain of the policy decisions taken by the Government and the same will be implemented whenever necessity arises as per the statutory provisions.

¶40

4. On the above contentions heard learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶41

5. Though the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the demands raised by the first respondent are not purely matters of policy decisions of the Government or the Department of Railway, however, this Court after carefully perusing clauses 6 and 7 of the claim statement filed on behalf of the workmen finds that they are purely within the domain of policy decisions

¶42

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

¶43

_________ Page 3 of 6_

¶44

W.P.No.19973 of 2016

¶45

of the Government, which cannot be questioned by the first respondent

¶46

before the Tribunal.

¶47

6. Hence the Award dated 28.02.2013 in I.D.No.36 of 2011 passed by

¶48

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai is modified with the following direction :

¶49

(i) The petitioner is directed to implement the claims made by the first respondent except Clause 6 and 7, wherever it is feasible and necessary as

¶50

per the statutory provisions within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

7. With the above directions and observation, this writ petition is

¶52

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

18.07.2023 1/2

rap

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶57

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

¶58

_________ Page 4 of 6_

¶59

W.P.No.19973 of 2016

¶60

¶61

The Division Secretary, All India Station Masters Association, Room No.10, Ananda Buildings,

¶62

3, Station Road, West Mambalam,

¶63

Chennai – 600 033.

¶64

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), No.26, Haddows Road, Sastri Bhavan,

¶65

Chennai – 600 006.

¶66

The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, First Floor, “B” Wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.

¶67

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

¶68

_________ Page 5 of 6_

W.P.No.19973 of 2016

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rap

W.P. No.19973 of 2016

¶73

18.07.2023 1/2

¶74

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

¶75

_________ Page 6 of 6_

The General Manager v. The Division Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. The Division Secretary

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

Sathish Vs State Rep.by

The Management, H.H.619 Vs M.Vasudevan

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

The General Manager Vs The Division Secretary

M/s.Perfect Vending India Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

Bongarala Chandravathi Vs Bongarala Venkata Kedarnath