T.N.E.B.Engineers Sangam Vs the Tamil Nadu E.B.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from effecting upgradation of Section Head posts in City/Urban Sections and 110 KV non grid sub stations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to that of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) by abolition of the corresponding posts of

¶63

Page 3 of 8

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.No.3041 of 2005

¶66

Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer Grade I in the said Sections/Sub stations pursuant to (Per) BP (Ch) 19 dated 28.01.2005.

¶67

For Petitioner : Mr.Sundar Narayan For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar Government Advocate. O R D E R

¶68

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing

¶69

the respondents 1 to 3 from effecting upgradation of Section Head Posts in City/Urban Sections and 110 KV non grid sub stations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to that of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) by abolition of the corresponding posts of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer Grade I in the said Sections/Sub stations pursuant to (Per) BP (Ch) 19 dated 28.01.2005.

¶70

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, it is noticed that the relief that is being sought by the petitioner is in fact would amount to restraining the respondent Board from acting upon the BP (Ch) 19 dated 28.01.2005. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said BP (Ch) 19 dated 28.01.25 has been issued in utter violation of settlement dated 31.12.1993, arrived at between the petitioner Union and the respondent Page 4 of 8

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.No.3041 of 2005

¶73

Board under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, it is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondents, while taking steps to upgrade the post of Section Head Post in City/Urban Sections and 110 KV non grid sub stations to that of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), have not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶74

This Court, after having considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought especially in the absence of any valid challenge to BP (Ch) 19 dated 28.01.2005. Consequently, in case, if the petitioner is of the view that an validly entered into settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is in any way violated by the respondent Board, it is always open for the petitioner to knock the doors of competent Labour Court seeking enforcement of the said award. Whether the respondents have in fact violated the terms of settlement or not cannot be examined by this Court, as the same would involve appreciation of various factual aspects. But in the instant case, no such factual foundation is laid to say that the respondent Board has violated the settlement dated 31.12.1993.

¶75

Page 5 of 8

¶76

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

¶77

W.P.No.3041 of 2005

¶78

Even if there is any factual information furnished, the same cannot appreciated by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the factual disputes cannot be gone into by this Court.

¶79

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent Labour Court, in case, if the cause still survives and the petitioner intends to prosecute the same. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶80

11.08.2025

¶81

dpa

¶82

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

¶83

Page 6 of 8

¶84

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

¶85

W.P.No.3041 of 2005