Dismissed¶32

The Pondicherry Power corporation employees v. The Under secretary to Government

Madras HC13 Feb 2025WP/3001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Protected workmen; Section 33(3) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Rule 61 / Rule 61(4) Industrial Disputes Central Rules 1957; trade union office bearers; Puducherry Power Corporation; Labour Department Puducherry; Labour Officer Karaikal; certiorarified mandamus; writ dismissed as infructuous; fresh annual application permitted.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition dismissed without costs, with the clarification that the Union remains free to apply afresh for protected workman status and any resulting dispute will be decided on its own merits. ¶32

The Pondicherry Power corporation employees Vs The Under secretary to Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal by the Labour Department of Puducherry to accept the petitioner Union's proposed office bearers as protected workmen for 2021-2022 under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should be set aside by writ of certiorarified mandamus.

¶23-24

Court's answer

Protected workman status is rendered only for one year, and each year a fresh application has to be made by the union, failing which the matter has to be taken to the labour department.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Since the recognition sought was for the single year 2021-2022, the rejection was made in 2022 and more than two years had lapsed, the matter became infructuous; the Court does not adjudicate disputes which no longer survive or academic issues.

¶32

Key takeaways

The dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner Union from applying afresh for protected workman status for its office bearers; any dispute arising thereof shall be decided purely on its own merits and the dismissal shall not be taken into account.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete), 13.02.2025 - W.P.No.3001 of 2023 and WMP.No.3290 of 2023: The Puducherry Power Corporation Employee's Social Welfare Union sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus against Report No.432/LO-KKL/CON/2021/245 dated 10.03.2022 of the Labour Officer, Karaikal and subsequent Order No.3424/AIL/LAB/T/2022/1329 dated 26.07.2022 of the Labour Department, Puducherry, refusing to confer protected workman status on the Union's list of office bearers for the year 2021-2022 under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the procedure being governed by Rule 61 (including Rule 61(4)) of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules, 1957. Holding that protected workman status is rendered only for one year and requires a fresh application each year, and that with the rejection dating from 2022 and more than two years elapsed the matter had become infructuous, the single Judge dismissed the petition without costs and closed the miscellaneous petition, declining to adjudicate disputes that no longer survive or academic issues. It was made clear that the dismissal will not prevent the Union from applying afresh for protected workman status, any such dispute to be decided purely on its own merits and the dismissal not to be taken into account.

¶1

W.P.No.3001 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

Writ Petition No. 3001 of 2023 and

¶7

WMP.No.3290 of 2023

¶8

The Puducherry Power Corporation Employee's Social Welfare Union, Regd. No.1665/RTU/2010 (Affiliated with AITUC-Puducherry State Council) Rep. by its Secretary Thiru. K. Lakshminarayanan, No.174, Gandhi Salai, T.R.Pattinam, Karaikal - 609 606. … Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Under Secretary to Government (Labour)

¶11

Labour Department, Vazhudavoor Road, Subbiah Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Puducherry – 605 009.

¶12

The Labour Officer, Labour Department Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Administrative Complex Madagadi, Karaikal – 609 602.

¶13

The Management, Puducherry Power Corporation Limited T.R.Pattinam, Nagore Main Road, Karaikal – 609 606. .... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: To issue a Writ, order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or for any other appropriate writ, calling for records relating to Report No.432/LO-KKL/CON/2021/245, dated

¶15

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

¶16

1 of 5

¶17

W.P.No.3001 of 2023

¶18

10.03.2022 of the second respondent Labour Officer, Karaikal and subsequent order No.3424/AIL/LAB/T/2022/1329, dated 26.07.2022 passed by the first respondent Labour Department to confer the list of Office Bearers submitted by the petitioner Union as Protected Workman for the year, 2021-2022.

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s. Usha Ramman

¶20

For Respondent : Mr. A.Tamilvanan, Additional Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition was filed by a Trade Union seeking to challenge

¶23

the order of the Labour Department of Puducherry in refusing to accept the names proposed by it to be recognized as protected workmen in terms of

¶24

Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶25

The Trade Union’s letter for recognizing the list of office bearers as protected workmen for the years 2021 - 2022 was not accepted by the management. Therefore, the union sent a complaint to the Regional Labour Officer, Karaikkal on 15.05.2021.

¶26

Since the request was not accepted, the Union is before this Court.

¶27

Under Section 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the safeguards given to

¶28

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

¶29

2 of 5

¶30

W.P.No.3001 of 2023

¶31

the protected workmen is set out. The Industrial Disputes Central Rules, 1957, more particularly Rule 61 deals with the procedure for recognizing a protected workman. Rule 61 (4) deals with the resolution of dispute in this regard. However, the status of protected workmen to be rendered only for one year and each year fresh application has to be made by the union failing which the matter will have to be taken to the labour department.

¶32

In this case, the rejection was made in the year 2022, and the recognition for protected workmen was sought for one year i.e. 2021-2022. More than 2 years have lapsed and the matter has become infructuous. This court do not adjudicate on disputes which no longer survives or on academic issues. Hence W.P.No. 3001 of 2023 will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the W.P. will not prevent the Petitioner Union from applying for protective workmen status for its office-bearers and any dispute arising thereof shall be decided purely on its own merits and the dismissal shall not be taken into account.

¶33

13.02.2025

¶34

Neutral Case Citation: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶35

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

¶36

3 of 5

¶37

W.P.No.3001 of 2023

¶38

¶39