A.Amutha vs Mr.V.Gnanamoorthy The Superintending Engineer Kadamparai Generation Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ
A.Amutha – Appellant
Versus
Mr.V.Gnanamoorthy The Superintending Engineer Kadamparai Generation Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Respondent
Cont.P.No.346 of 2026 | W.A.No.1714 of 2021 | W.A.No.1696 of 2021

Important Points

Court directed revival of Section 29 petition for prosecuting non-compliant officials under Industrial Disputes Act.

Subject

Labour & Employment - Industrial Disputes

Act Referred

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: S.29, S.32
Contempt of Courts Act: S.11

Headnote

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 29 and 32, empowers prosecution of officials for non-compliance with modified award directions under Section 29 upon sanction. Petitioner invoked Section 29 post non-compliance with prior Division Bench order modifying award, allowing workmen prosecution under Section 32. Court directed revival of petition and timely disposal. Issues framed around enforcement of prior directions and contempt for non-compliance. Court observed prior order's clarity on prosecution remedy and directed Assistant Commissioner of Labour to revive and expedite Section 29 petition within six months if properly represented. Contempt Petition closed with directions.

Advocates:
For Appellant: Mr.Krishnasamy.R
For Respondent: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Advit Law Chambers

Table of Content
1. prior division bench directed prosecution under sections 29/32. (Para 1)
2. petitioner invoked section 29; authority closed it. (Para 2)

ORDER

[Order of the Court was delivered by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J It is seen from the judgment in W.A.No.1696 of 2021 and batch that the Division Bench had directed as follows in paragraph No.45(v):

“45(v).As the Award is modified and replaced by this Judgment, in case of non-compliance, it is open to the Workmen to invoke Section 29 for prosecuting the Officials falling under Section 32. The Government must sanction prosecution. The Criminal Court shall take up the matter in case of sanction of prosecution on a day-to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond two weeks at any point of time.”

2.Accordingly, the petitioner had invokedSection 29of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for prosecuting the Officials underSection 32. She had thereafter also filed the present Contempt Petition. After filing the present Contempt Petition, he had moved back to the said authority who had closed the said petition filed under of the Act. 3.We would issue a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore to revive the petition filed underSection 29of the Act and proceed further in manner known to law. A further direction is also issued that if there is a proper representation and if unnecessary adjournments are not sought and if records are available, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore may endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the petitions stand revived.

4.With the above observations, this Contempt Petition stands closed.