Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE
M.Arumugam S/o. Meenachi Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer – Respondent
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Since both writ petitions challenge the common order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3.The first writ petition is filed by 40 Petitioners, of whom 39 were the original claimants in separate claim petitions. The 32nd Petitioner, S. Nagendiran, is the son of M. Sankaranarayanan, the Claim Petitioner in C.P. No. 156 of 2015, and he has approached this Court as his legal representative. He has chosen to challenge the common order passed by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, a total of 51 claim petitions—being C.P. Nos. 117 to 150 and 152 to 168 of 2015—were clubbed together and adjudicated by way of a common order following a joint trial.
4.Although there were 51 claim petitions, the present writ petition challenges only 40 of them, as 11 of the claimants have not chosen to assail the order. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Petitioners to implead the remaining 11 claimants as party respondents to the writ petition. In the absence of such impleadment, the adjudication would be incomplete, and the unchallenged portion of the order
The court reinforced that a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot override the existing statutory rights of workers to claim wages resulting from illegal closure, as stipulated in the t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that workmen cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court, and a balancing and prag....
Settlements reached in conciliation proceedings bind all employees, not limited to union members, ensuring rights to unimplemented agreements.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enforces adjudicated wage claims, without re-examining eligibility; established employer-employee relations must be acknowledged.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consequences of an illegal closure are statutorily prescribed, and the workmen are entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time....
The court ruled individual workmen can settle disputes but such settlements are not binding on the union or non-signatory workmen, reaffirming the importance of collective bargaining.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that settlements entered into in Industrial Disputes are valid and legal, even though provisions similar to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC do not exist in ....
The court affirmed that employee status as 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act hinges on actual job functions, not merely titles, impacting claims for closure compensation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
