Madras High Court
The Management Of Severn Glocon ... vs M/S United Labour ... on 22 October, 2021
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
The Management of Severn Glocon India Pvt.Ltd.,
rep by its Managing Director
F-96 and 97, Sipcot Industrial Park
Irungatukottai, Chennai 602 117 .. Appellant
-vs-
1. M/s United Labour Federation-Reg.No.2657/CNI
rep by its Secretary
No.149, Thambu Chetty Street
C.J Complex, 4th Floor
Chennai 600 001
2. The Joint Commissioner of Labour
Certifying Officer under Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act
th
6 Floor, D.M.S.Compound
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006
3. Severn Glocon Employees Welfare Union
rep by its Secretary
Plot No.40, S-2, KGT Nagar
Near Maran Garden, Katupakkam
Chennai 600 056 .. Respondents
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 22.02.2019 made in W.P.No.28785 of 2018.
For Appellant :: Mr.M.Rajeswaran for
M/s Nathan & Associates
For Respondents :: Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel for
M/s M.Karthikeyani for R1
Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate
for R2
No appearance for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order of
remand directing both the parties to go back to the second respondent,
namely, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Certifying Officer under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, on the ground that when
several objections were raised by the first respondent/writ petitioner-
Federation, the second respondent appears to have not considered the same.
2. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
3. As contended by Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the first respondent/writ petitioner-Federation, when several documents
were produced by the first respondent-Federation raising objections to the
Draft Standing Orders, instead of allowing the parties to adduce evidence in
support of their respective objections, unfortunately, the second respondent
has simply brushed aside the objections and certified the Draft Standing
Orders by the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned
single Judge, finding fault with the approach adopted by the second
respondent, after setting aside the order impugned, has rightly remanded the
matter back to the second respondent to consider the issue afresh after
affording reasonable opportunity to both the first respondent-Federation and
the Management before granting any certification to the Draft Standing
Orders. Hence, finding no infirmity with the impugned order, the writ
appeal fails and it is dismissed. Needless to state that the second respondent
shall complete the enquiry, after affording reasonable opportunity to both
parties, and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, interim order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
stands vacated and the C.M.P.No.8751 of 2019 is also dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs.
Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,J.) (D.B.C.,J.)
Index : yes/no 22.10.2021
ss
To
1. The Joint Commissioner of Labour
Certifying Officer under Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act
th
6 Floor, D.M.S.Compound
Teynampet
Chennai 600 006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
T.RAJA, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ss
W.A.No.1283 of 2019
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
