The government must refer industrial disputes for adjudication when a legitimate dispute exists, regardless of prior compensation received.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P. No.30209 of 2022 All India Forum for IT / ITES Employees Represented by its General Secretary .. Petitioner vs.

1. The Government of Tamilnadu Represented by its Secretary Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour-3, Labour Office, Kuralagam, 3^rd Floor, Chennai – 600 108. 3.The Management, Nelco Limited, Plot No.1/53 A, 2^nd Street, Sripuram Colony, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016. .. Respondents PRAYER: This Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the respondent in G.Os. (Pa) No.508 and 509 Labour and Employment (D1) Department and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to refer the dispute relating to the 7 demands pertaining to the member R.

Rajasekar and also to refer the dispute with regard to his non-employment for adjudication to the competent Labour Court, Award costs.

For petitioner : Mr. V. Ajay Khose For Respondents : Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader [for R1 & R2]

Mr. Sanjay Mohan, For M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates [for R3]

ORDER

This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the 1^st respondent in G.Os. (Pa) No.508 and 509 Labour and Employment (D1) Department dated 09.10.2020.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Union is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act , 1926 and the member of the petitioner Union namely R. Rajasekar joined service of the 3^rd respondent as a Technical Assistant Cell on 29.09.2007. The 3^rd respondent company is engaged in the business of providing VSAT connectivity solution and service to the customers and in the course of its business had entered into a contract with ONGC, to carry out VSAT installation, service & maintenance work at their site in Chennai. The said Rajasekar was assigned work in the above project. He completed the work assigned to him from 2011 to 2018 without any deficiency. The 3^rd respondent did not extend any earned leave, over time wages and there was no proper accounting and remittance of Provident Fund and ESI etc., The said Rajasekar was not given any promotion, whereas his juniors were paid higher salary than him. Therefore, the Union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and demanded the 3^rd respondent to extend all the benefits to the said Rajasekar. The petitioner Union made totally 7 demands. The conciliation proceedings were initiated. During the pendency, the 3^rd respondent issued a transfer order to the said Rajasekar on 22.03.2019 and transferred him from Chennai office to New Delhi Office. Therefore, he made a representation before the 3^rd respondent and requested not to transfer him from Chennai to Delhi. While so, without getting any prior permission or any approval before 2^nd respondent Labour Commissioner, the workman concerned was terminated from service by the 3^rd respondent by an order dated 22.05.2019. Therefore, the Union made a request and representation to the 3^rd respondent and to set aside the order of termination. No reply was given by the 3^rd respondent. The Union also filed a