The Management Vs Joint Commissioner of Labour

2.The Tirunelveli Mavatta Jananayaga Pathirapattarai Thozhilalargal Sangam (Reg.No.1211/TVL) 44E, Pandiyapuram South Street Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 004 rep.by its General Secretary

¶14

3.R.Krishnan

¶15

4.S.Velmurugan

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) Nos.10889 & 13446 of 2017

¶19

5.E.Arulmurugan

¶20

6.J.Jeganathan ... Respondents [R3 to R6 are impleaded vide Court order dted 07.11.2017 in W.M.P. (MD) No.9413 of 2017]

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order in No.Aa/484/2017, dated 29.05.2017, passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.D.Saravanan for R2 to R6

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.13446 of 2017:

¶24

The Management Lakshmi Metal Industries Unit-1, B Super 4 Industrial Estate Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 010 rep.by its Partner S.Sivaraman ... Petitioner

¶25

-vs-

¶26

1.Joint Commissioner of Labour Madurai

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

2.The Tirunelveli Mavatta Jananayaga Pathirapattarai Thozhilalargal Sangam (Reg.No.1211/TVL) 44E, Pandiyapuram South Street Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 004 rep.by its General Secretary

¶30

W.P.(MD) Nos.10889 & 13446 of 2017

¶31

3.Pa.Mu.Saravanan Joint Commissioner of Labour Ellis Nagar Madurai ... Respondents

¶32

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa/1704/17, dated 06.07.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

¶33

For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.D.Saravanan for R2

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

These two writ petitions are at the instance of the same petitioner

¶36

aggrieved by the orders passed by the first respondent apparently during the conciliation proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, “the Act, 1947”).

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) Nos.10889 & 13446 of 2017

¶40

2. By virtue of the impugned orders, the first respondent directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents 2 to 6 in W.P.(MD) No.10889 of 2017 and also the workmen, who are the subject matter of the conciliation proceedings, under challenge in W.P.(MD) No.13446 of 2017.

¶41

3. The scope of Section 12 of the Act, 1947, is limited and the first respondent is expected to put his best efforts to conciliate the matter between the Management and the workmen and in case if any settlement is arrived at, the first respondent has to record the settlement arrived at between the parties and then make the parties to act upon the said settlement. In case of failure of settlement, the first respondent is under obligation to submit a failure report to the appropriate Government leaving it open to the respective parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

¶42

4. But, in the instant case, the first respondent, instead of acting in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 1947, exceeded to his jurisdiction and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the workmen, who are alleged to have been removed from service, into service with backwages. The first respondent is not conferred with any such power to direct reinstatement, that too with backwages. In view of the same, the impugned

¶43

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) Nos.10889 & 13446 of 2017

¶46

orders dated 29.05.2017 and 06.07.2017, passed by the first respondent, on

¶47

the face of it, are without jurisdiction and non est in the eye of law.

¶48

5. In the light of the above, the impugned orders dated 29.05.2017 and 06.07.2017, passed by the first respondent, are quashed and the first respondent is directed to submit a failure report to the appropriate Government, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to enable the aggrieved parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

¶49

6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶50

25.03.2025

¶51

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶52

krk

¶53

To: The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

¶54

_____________ Page 5 of 6_