The court ruled that a withdrawal of an application under coercion does not invalidate the Tribunal's order, which must be addressed through the same Tribunal for any grievances.

ORDER :

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, dated 24.04.2024 made in M.P.No.1 of 2024 in I.D.No.30 of 2024. The entire order which is made in the said petition reads as follows:

“By reference No.L-14011/03/2022-IR (DU), dated 18.05.2022 which is read under:-

“Whether the demands raised by BEL-Tex Employees' Union against the Management of M/s .Bharath Electronics Limited, Chennai on the issue of 12 charter of demands, (as per in Annexure A') are just and fair? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

Accordingly ID case No.30/2022 registered before the Tribunal.

During the pendency of matter on behalf of the respondent an application moved titled “Application under Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ”.

Registered as Miscellaneous Application No.1/2024 arising out of ID 30/2022.

To which claimant/workman filed objection titled as

“Objection by the Opposite Party under Section 2A of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947) to the Approval Petition No.A.P.No.1 of 2024 filed by the above mentioned Applicant Shri T.Sundar”

Shri V.M.Narayanan learned counsel for the respondent after arguing at same length request that the 'Application under Sub Section 2 (b) of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947' to be dismissed as not pressed.

ORDER

Accordingly 'Application under Sub Section 2 (b) of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947' in question is not pressed.”

2. Thus when this Court at the out set questioned Mr.S.Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that after withdrawing the petition, how the Writ Petition is maintainable, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the withdrawal was not a decision which was properly made and on the spot in the spur of the moment the decision was made and the same is explained in paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the affidavit filed along with Writ Petition which reads as follows:

“6. On 24.04.2024, the approved petition filed by the third petitioner was taken up for hearing before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai. During the hearing, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai took the view that the approval petition filed by the third petitioner was not maintainable and that therefore the counsel appearing for the third petitioner must withdraw the Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2024 in I.D.No.30 if 2022. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approval petition was maintainable, and he also submitted copy of the written arguments with judgment which was refused to be received by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai.

7. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai further threatened the counsel for the petitioners that he would impose cost of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioners if the aforesaid approval petition was not withdrawn. This was nothing but a coercion to which the counsel succumbed, and orders were passed stating that the approval petition is dismissed as not pressed. Certified copy of the order dated 24.04.2024 was issued to the petitioner on 29.04.2024.”

3. Once the Tribunal records that the counsel has not pressed the application and accordingly dismissed, the order of the Tribunal is only the record as far as this Court is concerned to determine what transpired in Court. If the petitioner management want to plead something else, they cannot do so directly before this Court. To that, the learned Senior Counsel replied that already an Interlocutory Application is filed on 25.04.2024. The same is not numbered. The Trial Court may be directed to number the said Interlocutory Application and dispose of the same on merits.

4. Per contra, the Workman appearing in person would submit that he has been dismissed from service a