Writ Appeal filed by a Jute Mill against a single judge order granting injunctions against participation of outside leaders and a specific leader in negotiations. The Court held the original Writ Petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.
The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT APPEAL No. 1173 of 2001
JUDGMENT: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16719 of 2000, dated 12.6.2001.
The Writ Petition was filed by M/s Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Limited by its President seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restrain the outside leaders from participating in the negotiation meetings between the petitioner company and its workmen before the labour department and further to restrain Mr. P. Prasad from entering into the petitioner’s factory or anywhere near the petitioner factory premises within the vicinity of 500 mtrs.
The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties and also relying on the judgment of the apex Court reported in S.B.I. STAFF ASSOCIATION Vs. S.B.I. (1996(4) S.C.C. 378) has allowed the Writ Petition and issued writ as sought for by the petitioner against which the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the management which has filed the Writ Petition has no authority to file the Writ Petition and that the writ itself is not maintainable as the
grievance of the Writ Petitioner is more or less in the form of seeking injunction against the respondents and more so in the absence of any material available on record that the Government has directed the petitioner Mill to negotiate with the said Prasad. The said Writ Petition is not maintainable as no cause of action arose for filing the Writ Petition.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that in view of the unrest created in the mill and taking into consideration of the circumstances prevailing in the said Mill, the management is bound to file the present Writ Petition seeking prayer as sought for in the Writ Petition.
On perusal of the records, it is clear that the official respondents have directed the Jute Mill to negotiate with the said Prasad, who happened to be the 2nd appellant herein to be one of the participants for negotiations. Having gone into the Order passed by the learned Single Judge and also after hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India itself is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition is dismissed.
_______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J
_______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
17.7.2008 CHV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition filed by the management to restrain outside leaders from negotiations is maintainable.
Whether the Government had directed the petitioner Mill to negotiate with Mr. P. Prasad.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.B.I. STAFF ASSOCIATION Vs. S.B.I.Referred¶6
S.B.I. STAFF ASSOCIATION Vs. S.B.I. (1996(4) S.C.C. 378) · Who else cites this
M/s Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Limited
Mr. P. Prasad
Official Respondents
T. MEENA KUMARI
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
