Dismissed

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Sri Sanjib Choudhry, v. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Telangana HC9 Apr 2010WP/810/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking prohibition against the Labour Court from proceeding with a voluntary retirement dispute. The court relied on I.L. Naidu v. Union of India, noting the distinction between adjudication under Section 2-A(2) and references under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of 23.01.2002 vacated; Labour Court directed to proceed with I.D. No.73 of 2001.

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Sri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2002

¶3

TH DATED 9 APRIL, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN M/s.Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Rep. by its Dy.General Manager Sri Sanjib Choudhary , S/o Ashutosh Choudhary, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner

¶5

And Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Visakhapatnam. And Another. … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2002

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

M/s.Hindustan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, seeks a writ of prohibition against the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, from proceeding further with I.D. No.73 of 2001 pending on its file.

¶10

The petitioner company stopped operations in its Lead Plant at Visakhapatnam pursuant to the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Government of India. Thereupon, the petitioner company issued Circular dated 26.12.2000 advising its workmen to opt for voluntary retirement. In response thereto, 172 workmen and employees opted for voluntary retirement, including the second respondent herein.

¶11

While so, the Government of India exercising powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) made a reference of a dispute in this regard to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, which was taken on file as I.D. No.44 of 2001. The second respondent separately invoked Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 challenging his alleged forced and coerced resignation from service dated 24.01.2001. Aggrieved by the volte-face of the second respondent in accepting voluntary retirement and thereafter approaching the Labour Court, the petitioner company approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition to interdict further proceedings in I.D. No.73 of 2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

By order dated 23.01.2002, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the said I.D.

¶13

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner company brought to my notice that the connected cases filed by the second respondent and others were disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court in a decision reported in I.L.NAIDU v. UNION OF INDIA^[1] and that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said decision. I have perused the Judgment aforestated. The learned Judge having considered the matter at length therein opined that the scope of the application of the workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 was distinct and dissimilar from the scope of the reference made by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. The learned Judge further held that the Labour Court would have the competence and authority to adjudicate upon the issues which would arise in a petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 and therefore it could not be said that the Court has no jurisdiction, whereby a writ of prohibition could issue.

¶14

In view of the authoritative pronouncement on these aspects in the aforestated Judgment, this writ petition merits no further consideration and is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay granted by this Court on 23.01.2002 stands vacated and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, shall proceed with further hearing of I.D. No.73 of 2001 pending on its file and dispose of the same expeditiously. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶16

9^TH APRIL, 2010. VGSR

¶17

[1] 2003 (2) ALT 470

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Sri Sanjib Choudhry, v. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Sri Sanjib Choudhry, v. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Poshetty, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society

M.Man Singh Vs a.P.Genco

Naravaneni Chandra Rao Vs a.P.Genco

The Depot Manager, Vs Sri Mohan

Y.Ramchander, Vs The Executive Engineer

M.Vilas Vs Regl Mngr. Apsrtc. Adilabad and Anr.