Allowed

The Management of v.R.Spinning v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC27 Jul 2023WP/21649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of orders by Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court regarding dismissal of workmen and establishment closure. On the因为它们 filed for special leave, the parties settled the dispute with specific compensation amounts, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Industrial Tribunal andLabour Court are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay the agreed amounts to the respondents within eight weeks

The Management of v.R.Spinning Vs The Presiding Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.18495, 20332, 35487 & 35488 of 2016 and 7721 of 2017

¶7

The Management of V.R.Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director

¶8

... Petitioner in all the W.Ps.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondent in W.Ps.21649 & 23741/2016

¶11

2.G.Selvaraj 3.G.Manian W.P.21649/2016

¶12

... Respondents in

¶13

2.P.Nataraj 3.S.Arockiya Nathan

¶14

4.S.Thiyagarajan

¶15

5.K.S.Muthusonai

¶16

6.P.Haridass

¶17

7.R.Dharmaraj

¶18

8.S.Thirumalaisamy 9.K.M.Nataraj 10.K.S.Mylsamy 11.T.Palanisamy 12.G.Gunasekaran 13.T.Manoharan 14.S.Godhandapani

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶22

15.M.Easwaran ... Respondents in W.P.23741/2016

¶23

Thamizhaga Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (BMS) Represented by its General Secretary ... Respondent in W.P.7125/2017

¶24

Prayer in W.P.No.21649 of 2016:

¶25

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.No.88 of 2010 dated 27.04.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶26

Prayer in W.P.No.23741 of 2016:

¶27

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.No.17 of 2011 dated 28.04.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶28

Prayer in W.P.No.7125 of 2017:

¶29

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.99 of 2004 (on the file of Labour Court, Coimbatore) and quash the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in Industrial Dispute No.99/2004.

¶30

For Petitioners : Mr.Surya Senthil for M/s.Surana and Surana For Respondents : Mr.A.Devasigamani for R2 and R3 in W.P.21649/2016

¶31

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

¶32

2/6

¶33

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶34

for R2 to R15 in W.P.23741/2016 for Respondent in W.P.7125/2017

¶35

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶36

W.P.No.21649 of 2016 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ

¶37

of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.No.88 of 2010 dated 27.04.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶38

2.W.P.No.23741 of 2016 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.No.17 of 2011 dated 28.04.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶39

3.W.P.No.7125 of 2017 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.99 of 2004 (on the file of Labour Court, Coimbatore) and quash the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in Industrial Dispute No.99/2004.

¶40

4.Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

¶41

3/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶44

5.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Management dismissed the private respondents/ workmen on the ground that they

¶45

threatened the Managing cadre officials and thereafter, the petitioner filed approval petition before the Labour Court for approval of the dismissal order and the approval petitions were rejected. Hence, W.P.Nos.21649 and 23741 of 2016 were filed. The respondent union raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court challenging the closure of the petitioner Management and aggrieved by the award passed, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.7125 of 2017.

¶46

6.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, on instructions, submitted that during the pendancy of these writ petitions, the matter was settled inbetween the parties and the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to G.Selvaraj; Rs.3,25,000/- to P.Natraj; Rs.2,75,000/to S.Arockiya Nathan; Rs.3,25,000/- to S.Thiyagarajan; Rs.3,25,000/to K.S.Muthusonai; Rs.2,75,000/- to G.Gunasekaran; Rs.2,75,000/- to T.Manoharan; Rs.3,25,000/- to M.Eswaran as full and final settlement and the amount would be disbursed in their favour, within a period of

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶50

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

7.Recording the aforesaid submission, the orders impugned in these writ petitions, viz., the order of the Industrial Tribunal made in A.P.Nos.88 of 2010 and 17 of 2011 respectively, dated 27.04.2016 and 28.04.2016 respectively and the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.99 of 2004 dated 23.09.2016 are set aside.

¶52

8.These writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶53

27.07.2023

¶54

pri

¶55

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶56

¶57

1.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104.

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶61

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶62

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.18495, 20332, 35487 & 35488 of 2016 and 7721 of 2017

¶63

6/6

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.Nos.21649 & 23741 of 2016 and 7125 of 2017

¶66

27.07.2023

¶67

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

¶68

7/6

The Management of v.R.Spinning v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of v.R.Spinning 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management Vs v.John

K.Karunakaran, Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour II

Day N Day Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund

K.Appadurai Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management Vs Sathish a

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer