The Managing Director v. Thiru.J.Paulin Evariste

Madras HC9 Apr 2025WP/17657/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari against Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Puducherry award dated 30-4-2019 (ID.(L) No 1/2016); Section 33 A Industrial Disputes Act violation found unsustainable for want of pendency of conciliation proceedings as on 01.09.2009; transfer to Guwahati; four-day suspension accepted; award set aside and remanded for fresh disposal; writ allowed, no costs; Madras High Court; Justice M. Dhandapani; WP No. 17657 of 2019; decided 09-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: impugned award of the Labour Court set aside and matter remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No. 17102 of 2019) closed. ¶¶34

The Managing Director Vs Thiru.J.Paulin Evariste — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court's conclusion that the respondent had to be provided employment at the non-coil unit at Puducherry, on the footing of a violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, was justified, when no conciliation proceedings were pending as on 01.09.2009 (the date of transfer). +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, the Court found that the Labour Court had, without justification, arrived at a wrong conclusion that the respondent had to be provided employment at the non-coil unit at Puducherry, construing a violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act although no conciliation proceedings were pending as on 01.09.2009.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

From the impugned order it was seen that the respondent's four-day suspension had been accepted by the Labour Court, which stated that refusing employment was not justified; the identified defect lay in the further, unjustified direction to provide employment at the Puducherry non-coil unit.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the award passed by the Labour Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — M. Dhandapani J. (High Court of Judicature at Madras, 09-04-2025), WP No. 17657 of 2019. The Managing Director of the petitioner company challenged the Award dated 30-4-2019 of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry in ID.(L) No 1/2016, which had directed that the respondent (transferred to the Guwahati unit in 2009, absent from 25-5-2011, and thereafter suspended) be provided employment at the Puducherry non-coil unit on a finding of violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On perusal, the Court noted that the four-day suspension stood accepted by the Labour Court, yet the Labour Court — without justification and although no conciliation proceedings were pending as on 01.09.2009 (the date of transfer), a closure the respondent himself had admitted by letter dated 24-12-2014 — concluded that employment had to be provided at the non-coil unit. Holding this to be a wrong conclusion, the Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh disposal; the writ petition was allowed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No precedent was cited; the respondent did not appear despite notice being served.

¶1

WP No. 17657 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 17657 of 2019 AND WMP NO. 17102 OF 2019

¶7

The Managing Director M/S.Godrej Cosumer Products Limited R.S.NO 131,131/1-4 Kattukuppam Manapet Post, Puducherry- 607 402.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

J.Paulin Evariste No 5, 1st Cross Lourdu Nagar Kanuvapet Post, Villianur, Pondicherry- 605110.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for records of the Impugned Award dated 30-4-2019 of the Presiding officer, Industrial Tribual Cum Labour Court Puducherry in ID.(L) No 1/2016 and to quash the same as ultra vires, arbitrary, non-est in the eyes of law

¶13

For Petitioner(s): MR. S. RAVINDREN, SR. COUNSEL FOR M/S.L.SWAMINATHAN For Respondent(s): R-1 No Appearance

¶14

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

¶15

WP No. 17657 of 2019

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the Impugned Award dated 30-4-2019 of the Presiding officer, Industrial Tribual Cum Labour Court Puducherry in ID.(L) No 1/2016.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that the Petitioner Management had issued an order of appointment dated 21.12.1997 to the Respondent herein and one of the clauses of the said order of appointment stated that the Respondent is liable to be transferred to any department or branch or sister concern of the company anywhere in India at the discretion of the Petitioner Management which was accepted by the Respondent herein. As a part of the job rotation, the Petitioner Management had issued an Order of Transfer dated 31-7-2009 to the Respondent herein to report for duty in the factory located at North East/Guwahati on 1-9-2009 and the Respondent herein had accepted the Order of Transfer and reported for duty at the Ambipure Unit of M/s. Godrej Household Products Limited, Kalphahar, Guwahati, Assam on 5-9-2009. and was serving for nearly 22 months till 25-5-2011. As the Respondent herein had remained unauthorizedly absent from 25-5-2011 onwards, the General Manager – Operations has directed to “report for duty. As the Respondent did not report for duty, the Respondent was suspended by the Petitioner Management.

¶19

When the matter stood thus, the Respondent herein after a span of

¶20

nearly two years had submitted a letter

¶21

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

¶22

WP No. 17657 of 2019

¶23

had submitted a letter dated 24-12-2014 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) Government of Puducherry wherein he had requested for employment at Puducherry by admitting the fact that there was no official communication pending as on 1-9-2009 (date of transfer) and that the two conciliation proceedings under File No. 866/2006/LOC/L dated 1-9-2009 was closed on 1-92009. Contrary to the above said Letter dated 24-12-2014, the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of Puducherry had referred the dispute for adjudication to decide regarding the violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act among other references. While so, the Respondent had filed his Claim Statement in I.D. (L) No. 1 / 2016 praying to set aside the enquiry report and direct the Petitioner Management to provide employment in Puducherry non-coil unit. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry had allowed the industrial dispute by wrongly understanding the facts. Challenging the said order, the petitioner Management has filed the present petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that there was no pendency conciliation proceedings as on 01.09.2009 to invoke Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act more particularly when the respondent had admitted about closure and withdrawal of the two conciliation proceedings. This apart the respondent had not chosen to file the letter dated 24.12.2014 before the Labour Court and he has suppressed the said document.

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 17657 of 2019

¶27

The learned counsel further submitted that the subsistence allowance and wages has been paid to the respondent herein upto November 2012 and there exists no arrears and directing the petitioner management to pay 50% of backwages for the suspension period with continuity of service clearly establishes that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, had not applied his mind to the entire facts of the industrial dispute and hence, the impugned award dated 30.04.2019 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel prays that this Court may set aside the award and remand the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. Though notice has been served on the respondent, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, name of the respondent has been printed in the causelist.

¶29

On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent was suspended from service for four days that was accepted by the Labour Court and stated that refusing employment is not justified, however, the Labour Court without any justification, arrayed to a wrong conclusion that the respondent herein has to be provided employment at non coil unit at Puducherry construing that there is a violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act more particularly, when there is no pendency of conciliation proceedings as on 01.09.2009.

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 17657 of 2019

¶32

In view of the afore said reasons, the award passed by the Labour

¶33

Court is set aside and remands the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal.

¶34

With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

09-04-2025

¶36

rli

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

The Presiding officer, Industrial Tribual Cum Labour Court Puducherry

¶40

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

WP No. 17657 of 2019

M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli

WP No. 17657 of 2019

¶45

09-04-2025

¶46

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry in ID.(L) No 1/2016, which (per the petitioner's challenge) wrongly directed provision of employment to the respondent at the Puducherry non-coil unit on a supposed violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act and, as contended by counsel, awarded 50% backwages for the suspension period with continuity of service; challenged by writ of certiorari as ultra vires, arbitrary and non-est.¶¶17
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry · 30-4-2019
Prior proceeding
Appointment order dated 21.12.1997 issued to the respondent containing a clause that he could be transferred to any department, branch or sister concern anywhere in India at the management's discretion, which the respondent accepted.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Order of Transfer dated 31-7-2009 requiring the respondent to report at the North East/Guwahati factory on 1-9-2009; the respondent accepted and reported on 5-9-2009 at the Ambipure Unit of M/s. Godrej Household Products Limited, Kalphahar, Guwahati, Assam, serving there nearly 22 months until 25-5-2011.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
The respondent remained unauthorisedly absent from 25-5-2011 onwards, did not comply with the direction to report for duty, and was suspended by the petitioner management.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
After nearly two years, on 24-12-2014 the respondent wrote to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of Puducherry seeking employment at Puducherry, admitting there was no official communication pending as on 1-9-2009 (date of transfer) and that the two conciliation proceedings under File No. 866/2006/LOC/L dated 1-9-2009 were closed.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
Contrary to that letter, the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of Puducherry referred the dispute for adjudication, including the question of violation of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act among other references.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
The respondent filed his Claim Statement in I.D.(L) No. 1/2016 praying to set aside the enquiry report and direct the petitioner management to provide employment in the Puducherry non-coil unit.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry allowed the industrial dispute (allegedly by misunderstanding the facts, per the petitioner), giving rise to the present writ petition; counsel also contended before this Court that subsistence allowance and wages had been paid up to November 2012 with no arrears.¶¶23

The Managing Director v. Thiru.J.Paulin Evariste

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Thiru.J.Paulin Evariste

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs Labour Inspector, Authority

Management of Glad Engineering Works, Vs v.Loganathan

The Management Vs Vellaiyan

A.Sagayaraj Vs the Management

R.Pandy, S/O. a.Ramaiah Vs the Head of Human Resoruces

National Employees Union Vs Union of India the Secretary to Government of India