Madras High Court
The Management vs Royal Enfield Employees Union on 22 June, 2021
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
& C.M.P.No.21480 of 2019
The Management
Royal Enfield
(A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd),
A-19, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Oragadam,
Kancheepuram District-602 105. .. Appellant
Vs
1.Royal Enfield Employees Union
(Regn.No.3617/CNI),
Rep. by its General Secretary,
5 Dr. Vasudevan Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
2.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary,
Labour and Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Labour,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 19.07.2019 made in W.P.No.21250 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.Anand for
M/s T.S.Gopalan and Co.,
For Respondents : M/s Karl Marx for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The appeal lies on a narrow compass. The learned single Judge,
while issuing direction to respondents 2 and 3 herein, was pleased to
hold as follows:
"The 3rd respondent, who is hearing the dispute and
initiated the conciliation proceedings is directed to
complete the proceedings by affording opportunity to
both the petitioner Union as well as the 4th
respondent Management and conclude the same
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. In case, the 3rd respondent
is not able to come to any settlement as between the
petitioner and the 4th respondent, a report may be
submitted and the first respondent Government is
directed to refer the dispute for adjudication and the
Government is also directed to pass appropriate
orders under Section 10(B) of the I.D. Act. The 3rd
respondent is also directed to advise the 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
respondent Management that the members of the
petitioner Union need not be subjected to any
vindictive action at their hands, pending conciliation
proceedings."
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the order has been passed without hearing the appellant and there
cannot be a mandamus to the third respondent to refer the matter to
the second respondent as Section 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act
would not get attracted.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ
petitioner submitted that before taking a decision, the second
respondent will hear both sides.
4.On perusal of the order under challenge, it appears that the
appellant has not been heard. Considering the nature of direction
issued, we only clarify that in the event of report being submitted to
the third respondent, the said authority is expected to pass
appropriate orders, which is inclusive of decision to invoke Section
10(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act after hearing both the appellant
and the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
5.Thus, with the abovesaid clarification and observation, the writ
appeal stands disposed of. We expect the second respondent to take
an independent decision, if so required, without being influenced by
the orders passed by this Court on hearing both sides. No cost.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
22.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
raa/mmi
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Labour,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.3348 of 2019
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
