Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1944
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Tamil Nadu Anaithu Kooturavu Niyaaya Vilai Kadai Paniyalargal Sangam & Others
Versus
The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Chepauk & Others
W.P.Nos.22043, 23343, 24464 and 24809 of 2008 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 18-04-2012
For the Petitioners:C. Prakasam, T. Sundaravadanam, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, for M/s. Sai Bharath and Ilan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Dig Vijaya Pandian, AGP, EMS. Natarajan, GA (Co-op), S. Ramachandran, Advocate.
The judgment established the importance of raising an industrial dispute to decide the appropriate quantum of loss that should be levied and emphasized the availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
Trade Union - Circular Challenged - G.O.Ms.No.139 Co-operation, Food Consumer Protection Department, dated 21.07.2008 - W.P.No.22043 of 2008, W.P.No.23343 of 2008, W.P.No.24464 of 2008, W.P.No.24809 of 2008 - The court discussed the circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the Government Order, and highlighted the need for raising an industrial dispute to decide the appropriate quantum of loss that should be levied. The court also emphasized the availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and the abuse of the court's process by the petitioners. The judgment refrained from going into the merits of the contentions made by the petitioners, stating that such issues can only be decided by an industrial adjudication forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, trade unions representing employees working in fair price shops, challenged a circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and a Government Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to raise an industrial dispute to decide the appropriate quantum of loss that should be levied and abused the court's process by not disclosing their membership and not adhering to the earlier direction issued by the court.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the circular and Government Order, the need for raising an industrial dispute, and the availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for raising an industrial dispute to decide the appropriate quantum of loss that should be levied and highlighted the availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment also focused on the abuse of the court's process by the petitioners.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to raise a dispute if they wish to challenge the issues raised in the petitions. The dismissal of the writ petitions will not prevent the petitioners from raising a dispute, and the considerations made in the judgment will not bind on the adjudicating forum in case a dispute is raised by the petitioner union.
In the first Writ Petition in W.P.No.22043 of 2008, the petitioner is a Trade Union functioning in the various fair price shop run by different Co-operative Societies in Tamil Nadu and its federation of such Unions under the various Co-operative Societies and the prayer made was to challenge the circular issued by the first respondent-Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 19.08.2008. By the impugned circular, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies gave certain guidelines for recovery of amount for the loss caused by the employees working in the fair price shops dealing with the essential commodities.
2. By the impugned circular, it is stated that if there was any loss of the commodities, depending upon the commodity, the rate per kilogram specified, shall be recovered. The amounts to the extent of rate fixed for the fair price items should be retained and the balance amount should be credited to the Government account. Apart from the recovery of loss caused by the employees, necessary disciplinary action should also be taken. It was also indicated that during the audit, if the stocks were found to be in excess of the supply, even for that, action should be initiated against the employees.
3. The first Writ Petition was admitted on 30.09.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted. The interim stay was subsequently allowed to be continued and liberty was given to the Department to file appropriate vacate stay application. Accordingly, the vacate stay application in M.P.No. 1 of 2009 was filed together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 01.12.2008. For the reasons best known, the application was not brought out for any hearing.
4. In the meanwhile, the second Writ Petition in W.P.No.23343 of 2008 came to be filed by one Tamil Nadu Maanila Anna Kuturavu Nayaveelai Kadai Uzhiyargal Sangam, represented by its Secretary. In that Writ Petition, the challenge is to the same circular dated 19.08.2008. That Writ Petition was admitted on 30.09.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted for a period of three weeks. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the said order has been extended. In the meanwhile, M.P.No.1 of 2009 was filed together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 16.09.2009.
5. In the third Writ Petition inW.P.No.24464 of 2008, the petitioner is a Trade Union working under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation with Registration No. 3166/CNI. The prayer in the Writ Petition was not only challenging the very similar circular, but also the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.139 Co-operation, Food Consumer Protection Department, dated 21.07.2008 as well as the order dated 01.09.2008, which is a consequential order issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. That Writ Petition was admitted on 07.10.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim stay and it was directed to continue without specifying any time limit. In the mean while, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2009 together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 18.11.2009.
6. W.P.No.24809 of 2008 is filed by Tamil Nadu Consumer Cooperative Employees Federation, represented by its President, challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.139 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 21.07.2008. The said Trade Union represented its employees working in various Fair Price Shops given to the Cooperative societies.
7. It must be noted that more or less with a similar prayer, similar trade union filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.16728 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of along with other writ petitions on 26.11.2007. In paragraph 3 and 4, it was observed as follows:-
"3. On an omnibus prayer like the present one, this issue cannot be gone into. Insofar as no authority including an adjudicating forum under the Industrial Disputes Act had not gone into the issue as to the justification for mak
