Madras High Court
Union Of India vs K.Ezhilarasi on 4 August, 2022
W.A.No.299 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.299 of 2022
1.Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2.The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
O/o. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
No.4, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006. .. Appellant
Vs
1.K.Ezhilarasi
2.V.Vijayalakshmi
3.R.Dhanalakshmi
4.M.Pappathi
5.R.Ayyam Perumal
6.P.Indrani
7.K.M.Suguvana Kumar
8.V.Dinesh Kumar
9.V.Thiruvengada Raja
10.K.Gopi
11.M.Vijayalakshmi
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.299 of 2022
12.M.Rajendran
13.V.Shanthamma
14.S.Sivagami
15.State Bank of India,
rep. by its General Manager-HR,
Local Head Office,
Circle Top House,
No.16, College Road,
Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 17.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.6834 of 2021.
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan
Addl. Solicitor-General
assisted by
M/s.J.Madanagopal Rao
Senior Panel Counsel
for Central Government
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal has been filed to assail the order dated
17.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.6834 of 2021. Therein a challenge to
the failure report dated 16.12.2019 was made. It was on a dispute
raised on termination of the respondents 1 to 14 and the order of the
first appellant dated 30.12.2019 referring the dispute relating to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.299 of 2022
termination of services of the respondents 1 to 14.
2. The respondents 1 to 14 have also filed writ petition, being
W.P.No.41427 of 2016, seeking a restraint order on the appellants
from altering the service conditions of the respondents 1 to 14,
including discontinuance of their service without getting approval
under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, "the
Act of 1947", as a dispute was raised by the State Bank of Mysore
Employees' Union on behalf of the respondents 1 to 14 for absorption
of their services and was pending with the conciliation officer and
further to direct the second appellant to conciliate and effect
settlement and if no settlement is forthcoming, then to submit a failure
report under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1947 and to direct the first
appellant to refer the dispute for adjudication before the competent
Industrial Adjudicator.
3. The learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions of
the parties at length and, to deal with the arguments, several
judgments were referred. It was found that the Government referred
the dispute relating to non-employment instead of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.299 of 2022
regularisation/absorption. It was going beyond the dispute and
demand raised by the Union and, thus, the casual approach of the
Government was referred. The learned Single Judge thus found
reference order dated 30.12.2019 to be interfered or the Government
will have to issue a corrigendum. It was observed that due to the
erroneous reference, the matter remained pending for years together,
because the dispute was raised in the year 2016. Accordingly, to
avoid further litigation, modified terms of reference were given in
paragraph 12 of the impugned order.
4. We do not find why an appeal has been preferred by the
Union of India when the learned Single Judge has recorded a
categorical finding about the dispute raised by the Union and the
controversy involved therein. Contrary to the aforesaid, a reference
was made in regard to non-employment while that was not the dispute
raised by the respondents 1 to 14.
5. In the light of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has
rightly caused interference in the order of reference. We do not find
any reason and even justification for a challenge to the just order
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.299 of 2022
passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal fails
and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.2112 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
04.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To
The General Manager-HR,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Circle Top House,
No.16, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.299 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.299 of 2022
04.08.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
