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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
The Chairman and Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent



##PAGE1##

2026:MHC:438

W.P.No.39721 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.39721 of 2025

and W.M.P.No.44633 of 2025

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited,

Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,

Bengaluru – 560 045.

2. The General Manager – HR,

M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited,

Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,

Bengaluru – 560 045.

3. The General Manager,

M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited,

Nandambakkam,

Chennai – 600 089.

Represented by General Manager .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The Secretary,

BEL – TEX Employees Union,

M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited,

Nandambakkam,

Chennai – 600 089.

2. L.Singaravelu,

Junior Section Officer (Dismissed Employee),

Employee No.209556,

Plot No.26, 19th Cross Street,

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 08:06:31 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.39721 of 2025

Padmavathy Nagar Extension,

Madambakkam, Chennai – 600 126.

Ph.No.9677004194 .. Respondents

(Second respondent is impleaded as per the order in

W.M.P.No.54459 of 2025 in W.P.No.39721 of 2025,

dated 29.01.2026)

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai in

Misc. Application No.1/2024 in I.D.No.30/2022, dated 24.04.2024 and

Interlocutory Application No.1/2025 in Miscellaneous Application No.1 of

2024 in I.D.No.30 of 2022, dated 12.09.2025 and quash the same and

further direct the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai to restore the Approval Application.

For Petitioner : Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed,

for M/s.Advit Law Chambers

For Respondents : Mr.L.Singaravelu,

Party-in-person

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated

24.04.2024 made in Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2024 in I.D.No.30

of 2022 and Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025 in Miscellaneous

Application No.1 of 2024 in I.D.No.30 of 2022, dated 12.09.2025 and to

quash the same.

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 08:06:31 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.39721 of 2025

2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

perusing the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the material

records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that it is a public

sector undertaking functioning under the control of the Central

Government. The workman, L.Singaravelu, being the employee under the

petitioner management, during the COVID phase – II, went into public

making unscrupulous and scurrilous allegations against the management as

if the management is risking the lives of the workmen. Therefore,

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said L.Singaravelu and

by the order, dated 29.08.2023, dismissed the workman from service.

Since, already, an Industrial Dispute was pending, the application in

M.A.No.1 of 2024, was filed for approval of the punishment under Section

33(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the same came up for

hearing on 24.04.2024, the Incharge Officer, who was manning the

Tribunal on a temporary basis having been deputed from some other

bench, without understanding the circumstances under which the Approval

Petition is filed, erroneously questioned that when the petitioner

management has already dismissed the employee from the service, why it

is filing the Approval Petition and the party-in-person was also appearing

3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 08:06:31 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.39721 of 2025

and they also further submitted as if it is not necessary at all and that if

they are aggrieved, they will file the Industrial Dispute.

3. In view of the said outburst by the Tribunal, since the Counsel

who is representing the management namely, Mr.Narayanan, was an

elderly gentleman, aged about 81 years, tried to make his point to the

Tribunal, but, the Tribunal repeatedly threatened either to withdraw the

Computation Petition or that it will dismiss it by mulcting

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