Dismissed

Murugan.v v. The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC3 Oct 2023WP(MD)/18557/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging amended trade union bye-laws. The court held that since the Joint Commissioner of Labour had already approved the amendments, the petition raised a factional dispute with nothing left to adjudicate via this writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as the matter has already been adjudicated by the first respondent's approval order.

Murugan.v Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18557 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18557 of 2023

¶7

V.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Joint Commissioner of Labour Office, Madurai.

¶10

2.Pachammal ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to declare as a null and void the new amended bye-law, dated 05.04.2023 on the base of the petitioner's representation, dated 19.07.2023 within a stipulated period of time fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul

¶13

For R1 : Mr.T.Villavan Kothai Additional Government Pleader

¶14

For R2 : Mr.K.Jeyamohan

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P(MD)No.18557 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed by the President of a Trade Union seeking a prayer as against the 1^st respondent to declare as null and void the newly amended bye-laws, dated 05.04.2023 on the basis of the petitioner’s representation, dated 19.07.2023.

¶20

When the writ petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent brought to the notice of the Court that the amended bye-laws were placed before the 1^st respondent herein for his approval and he has already passed an order on 10.07.2023 approving the amendments passed by the Trade Union. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that without properly convening the general body meeting, these resolutions have been passed and therefore, the amendment of bye-laws should be declared as null and void. However, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that the writ petitioner has also participated in the general body meeting and he has also consented for the amendment of bye-laws.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.18557 of 2023

¶24

The extraction of the submissions made on either side will

¶25

clearly reveal that there is a factional dispute within Trade Union which could not be resolved in the writ petition. In fact, the 1^st respondent has already passed orders approving the amendments made in the bye-laws on 10.07.2023. Therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. If there is an appeal provision under the trade unions Act, the writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority or he can approach the competent Civil Court challenging the amendments.

¶26

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands

¶27

disposed of. No costs.

¶28

03.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶29

¶30

The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Joint Commissioner of Labour Office, Madurai.

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.18557 of 2023

¶34

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶35

gbg

¶36

Order made in W.P(MD)No.18557 of 2023

¶37

Dated: 03.10.2023

¶38

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

Murugan.v v. The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan.v v. The Joint Commissioner of Labour

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

Subbammal (Died) Vs Jeyaraj

Hirunnisa Beevi Vs Kamal

K.Esakkiappan Vs Krishnaveni

Sethuramu.R Vs The General Manager (Hr)

Shanthi.B Vs the Principal Secretary

Edwin.J Vs The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)