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) 17121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M/s. MRF Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority, Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 – Respondent
W.P. No.7301 of 2026 | Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Vijayan for Ms.Bensi Rema for M/s.King And Partridge
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Subramani for R2
Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Gokul for R3

The certifying authority is not a necessary party in an appeal concerning Industrial Employment Standing Orders, as its presence can be secured through summons if required.

Headnote:The petition concerns a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the repeated return of an appeal under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, due to the absence of the certifying authority as a party. The Court determined the certifying authority was not a necessary party since testimony could be summoned if needed. The return from the trial Court was overruled and directions were given to process the appeal timely. The issues revolved around the requirement for the certifying authority’s presence in appeals concerning the management and trade union regarding retirement age. The Court's reasoning emphasized the flexibility of summoning the authority if needed and the procedural importance of timely resolutions. The writ petition stood disposed of with directives for expedited handling of the appeal without the certification authority.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed challenging return of appeal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel submissions on timely disposal. (Para 3 , 4)
3. certifying authority's necessity addressed. (Para 5)
4. directions given for timely processing of appeal. (Para 6)

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent, namely the Appellate Authority – Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946/Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, vide return memo dated

23.01.2026 in File No.SOA 63 of 2025.

2. When the matter came up for admission, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the appeal has been filed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. While so, the appeal has been repeatedly returned on the ground that the authority certifying the Standing Orders should also be made as a party. For the earlier returns, when the compliance was endorsed by stating that he is not a necessary party, repeatedly on the same ground the matter is returned. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that even though it is a return, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that in the event the appeal is taken on file, a direction may be given to dispose of the same at the earliest, as the matter is pending for long.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent would submit that though the matrix of return and representation is as such, in the event the appeal is taken on file, the same shall be disposed of at an early date.

5. Upon perusal of the nature of the appeal, the issue is with reference to the age of retirement. The same is an issue between the management and the trade union. As far as the presence of certifying authority is concerned, if any information with reference to the process of certification is necessary, the authority can always be summoned as a witness by either of the parties or even in their failure by the Court and therefore I am of the view that the certifying authority is not a necessary party to that extent.

6. The return of the trial Court shall stand overruled and if the appeal is represented within one week along with the web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order, the same shall be taken as represented within time and if the appeal is otherwise in order in all other respects, the same shall be taken on file. The appeal, once taken on file, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than five months from the date of appeal taken on file.

7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.

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