Madras High Court
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs The General Secretary on 11 April, 2023
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
&
C.M.P. No. 13725 of 2019
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
Boiler Auxiliaries Plant,
Indira Gandhi Industrial Complex,
Ranipet – 632 406,
Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Additional General Manager ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The General Secretary,
Supervisory Union,
BAP/BHEL, BHEL Post, Ranipet,
Vellore – 632 406,.
2. Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
1st Floor, B Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
1\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. Regional Labour Commissioner,
26, Haddows, Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
4. Union of India, rep. by its
Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Labour
New Delhi 110 001. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 15.02.2019 passed in
W.P. No.19362 of 2018.
For Appellant :: Mr.A.V. Arun
For Respondents :: Mr.B.Sudhirkumar
Senior Panel Counsel for R3 & R4
R2 Court
No appearance for R1
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R. KALAIMATHI,J.
The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
15.02.2019 passed in W.P. No.19362 of 2018.
2\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
2. Notice has been served on the 1st respondent, but there is no
representation on their behalf.
3. The 1st respondent Union had filed the writ petition challenging
the order dated 20.11.2017 made in No.L-42011/165/2016 IR (DU) on the
file of the Deputy Director, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakthi Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001 and to quash the same.
4. The 1st respondent Union representing the category of
supervisors, belonging to S-1 to S-3 grades, who are employed in the
appellant Management had approached the 3rd respondent, namely, the
Regional Labour Commissioner, seeking negotiation and settlement in
regard to certain disparities in the pay as applicable to categories of S-1 to
S-3 Supervisors and other incidential issues. The matter was taken up for
conciliation by the 3rd respondent and after conclusion of the conciliation,
having found that settlement between the parties was not possible, a failure
report was submitted to the 4th respondent on 19.10.2016. Based on the
3\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
failure report, the Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication
vide its proceedings dated 20.11.2017. After the reference, the dispute was
taken up as I.D. No. 104 of 2017 and adjudication process was commenced
by the 3rd respondent. As against the said reference, the writ petition came to
be filed by the appellant Management on the ground that the members of the
1st respondent Union were not workmen and therefore, the reference was
bad.
5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival
submissions, was of the view that when the dispute raised by the 1st
respondent Union with regard to disparities in pay of Supervisors belonging
to S-1 to S-3 grades had been referred for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal, the Management could have raised all their objections before the
Industrial Tribunal instead of approaching this Court challenging the very
terms of reference thereby scuttling the process of expeditious industrial
adjudication of the dispute raised by the 1st respondent Union. The learned
Single Judge further observed that the writ petition appeared to have been
filed by the appellant Management with an intention to frustrate the
4\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
attempts made by the 1st respondent Union to have their pay grievances
redressed before the adjudicatory forum and dismissed the writ petition.
Questioning the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the
Management.
6. Since the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal is pending
in I.D.No.104 of 2017, the Tribunal shall take into account the pleas made
by both parties and render a finding. The Tribunal shall not adjourn the
matter in I.D.No.104 of 2017 beyond seven working days at any point of
time.
7. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.)
11.04.2023
nv
5\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
To:
1. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
1st Floor, B Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Regional Labour Commissioner,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Union of India,
Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi 110 001.
6\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2038 of 2019
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.KALAIMATHI,J.
nv
W.A.No.2038 of 2019
11.04.2023
7\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
