SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 14

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
R.V. Nagabhoosanam & Another
Versus
M/s.M.R.F. Limited, Vellore District & Others
W.P.No.8681 of 2003
Decided On :01-02-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:V. Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, Sanjay Mohanfor M/s.S. Ramasubramanian Associates, R3, N. Senthil Kumar Additional Govt. Pleader.

The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules, being special and different from the Civil Procedure Code, did not allow for the restoration of the industrial dispute to the file of the Labour Court.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Industrial Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 2(A)(2), Section 10, Second Schedule to Section 7 - The court discussed the amendments to Section 2(A)(2) and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to adjudication of industrial disputes. It highlighted the duty of the Labour Court to gather evidence and pass awards on merits. The court also referred to Rule 48 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules 1958, which speaks of ex-parte proceedings, and Rule 34 which outlines the proceedings before the Labour Court or Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, legal heirs of a deceased workman, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an award of the Labour Court and to restore the industrial dispute to the file of the Labour Court. The deceased workman had filed a petition under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, seeking relief of setting aside the order of termination and continuity in service with backwages and other benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules, being special and different from the Civil Procedure Code, did not allow for the restoration of the industrial dispute to the file of the Labour Court and the petitioners' writ petition was dismissed.

Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the amendments to Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the duty of the Labour Court to gather evidence and pass awards on merits, and the applicability of ex-parte proceedings and other procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules did not allow for the restoration of the industrial dispute to the file of the Labour Court, and therefore, the petitioners' writ petition was dismissed.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment :-

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari in calling for the records relating to the award of the second respondent dated 22.03.1999 in I.D.No.297 of 1994 raised by deceased Workman N.Nandan against the first respondent/ Management and to quash the same and also to direct the second and third respondents to restore the said Industrial Dispute I.D.No.297 of 1994 to the file of the Labour Court, Vellore and to issue further direction to the second respondent to entertain the application of the petitioners for their substitution as petitioners in the said industrial dispute in the place of the deceased workman and dispose of the said Industrial Dispute on merits within a time frame to be determined by this Court.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Workman N.Nandan, who was employed in the first respondent/Company. The Industrial Dispute I.D.No.297 of 1994 on the file of the second respondent was dismissed for non prosecution on 22.03.1999. The deceased Workman N.Nandan had filed a petition under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the second respondent/Labour Court and the same was taken on file as I.D.No.297 of 1994. In the said I.D., the deceased Workman prayed for the relief of setting aside the order of termination passed by the first respondent/Management dated 03.10.1992 and sought also the relief of continuity in service with backwages and other benefits.

3. The deceased Workman N.Nandan was not married and the petitioners are the parents, being the Legal Representatives of the deceased workman, have projected the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an amendment of Section 2(A) has been brought into force by the Tamil Nadu Government by Act 5 of 1998 and Sub Section (2) has been inserted to Section 2(A) and as per the ingredients of the said Section, an aggrieved individual workman may apply in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court for adjudication of a dispute and it shall proceed to adjudicate such dispute as if such dispute has been referred to it for adjudication and in that event all the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to adjudication of industrial disputes will apply to a Labour Court and earlier, only the Union of workers can raise a dispute on behalf of the workmen and after the amendment of Section 2(A)(2), the workman can himself individually raised such dispute and in that event, the Labour Court proceed to adjudicate to such dispute in the manner known to law and further Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals and added further the Second Schedule to Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Serial No. (3) speaks of discharge or dismissal of workman including reinstatement of, grant of relief to, workman wrongfully dismissed and the Labour Court has to consider that the labour dispute is between the weaker sections of workmen and that of the employer and the industrial dispute adjudication is an adversarial litigation and the Labour Court/Tribunal has the proactive power to gather evidence and it has got the duty to pass award on merits.

5. Expatiating his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there may be several reasons for a workman in not attending the particular hearing of the Labour Court including the reason of penury and whether a party is present or not, the Labour Court has the responsibility of adjudicating the matter on merits and this cannot be shrugged off by the Labour Court and in the instant case, the second respondent/Labour Court in its award has made the following observation "This petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 2A(2) of I.D. Act 1947. No representation for petitioner. This is old petition. Petitioner called absent. Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No cost."

and in fact the second resp






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top