Allowed

M.Sakthi v. Union of India

Madras HC27 Nov 2023WP/33200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order refusing to accept an industrial dispute for conciliation, holding that a previous directive to consider a representation did not preclude a cause of action for alleged oral termination. The petitioners were granted liberty to raise the dispute with the Conciliation Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.02.2023 quashed; petitioners granted liberty to raise an industrial dispute for conciliation before the fourth respondent.

M.Sakthi Vs Union of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.33200 of 2023 & W.M.P.No.32907 of 2023

¶7

M.Sakthi

¶8

K.Iyyanar

¶9

B.Rambagadur ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Union of India

¶12

Rep. By its Secretary to Government Town and Country Planning Department Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry

¶13

The Chief Town Planner (Town Planning)-Cum Vice Chairman-Building Centre, Villianur, Puducherry

¶14

Building Centre Represented by its Member Secretary (Government of Puducherry Undertaking) Pondy Road, Villianur, Puducherry- 605 110

¶15

Labour Officer (Conciliation) Office of the Labour Officer (Conciliation) No.15, First Floor, Nehru Nagar, Puducherry – 605 011... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶18

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶20

PRAYER:

¶21

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the action of the 4^th respondent refusing to take up the dispute raised by the petitioners against the respondents 1 to 3 for conciliation as illegal and consequently to direct the 4^th respondent to take up the dispute between the petitioners and respondents 1-3 for conciliation and complete the conciliation within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Saikrishnan

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

When the petitioners herein had sought for regularization of their

¶27

services, through a representation and when their representation was not considered within a reasonable time, they had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.31590 of 2022 and by an order dated 25.11.2022, this Court had directed the concerned respondent to consider the representation within a stipulated time. Consequently on 28.02.2023, the second respondent had passed an order rejecting the petitioners' request for reinstatement.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶29

3/6

¶30

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

¶31

2. When the petitioners herein had sought for raising a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, the second respondent herein had refused the request on the ground that the Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to take up the conciliation as the matter has already been decided by the Madras High Court.

¶32

3. I am not in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the second respondents in the impugned letter. The grievance of the petitioners before their Employer was with regard to regularization and their reinstatement. This Court had only directed the second respondent herein to consider the petitioners' representation in this regard and there was no positive finding. When the petitioners allege that they have been orally terminated from service, that would give rise to a cause of action for an industrial dispute. While that being so, quoting the earlier orders of this Court as a bar for taking up the dispute for conciliation cannot be legally sustained.

¶33

4. In this background, the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 is quashed and the petitioners are granted liberty to raise an industrial dispute for the purpose of conciliation before the fourth respondent and on the receipt of the same, the fourth respondent shall consider the same

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶35

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

¶36

on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

5. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.

¶38

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

27.11.2023

¶40

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶41

gpa

¶42

¶43

The Secretary to Government Union of India Town and Country Planning Department Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry

¶44

The Chief Town Planner (Town Planning)-Cum Vice Chairman-Building Centre, Villianur, Puducherry

¶45

The Member Secretary Building Centre (Government of Puducherry Undertaking) Pondy Road, Villianur, Puducherry- 605 110

¶46

Labour Officer (Conciliation) Office of the Labour Officer (Conciliation) No.15, First Floor, Nehru Nagar, Puducherry – 605 011

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH,J.

gpa

W.P.No.33200 of 2023

27.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

M.Sakthi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sakthi v. Union of India

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

K.Periyasami and another Vs R.Sudha

M.Gnanasekaran Vs Thiru.Pradeep Yadav IAS

A.Abdul Kadar Vs Thiru. Pradeep Yadav I.A.S

K.Senguttuvan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Xavier Rajamani Vs the Director General of Police

S.Chinnaswamy Vs State of Tamilnadu