Madras High Court
The Management Of Bharat vs The Secretary on 11 April, 2023
W.A. No. 2029 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. 2029 of 2019
&
C.M.P. No. 13653 of 2019
The Management of Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited,
Ranipet, Vellore – 632 406
repted by its Executive Director ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Labour
& Employment,
Shram Shakthi Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Regional Labour Commissioner,
Central/Conciliation Officer,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
No.26, Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. Supervisors Union BHEL/BAP/Ranipet,
BHEL Post, Ranipet,
Vellore – 632 406,
rep. by its General Secretary. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 25.03.2019 passed in
W.P. No. 22471 of 2018.
For Appellants :: Mr.A.V. Arun
For Respondents :: Mr.B.Sudhirkumar
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & R2
No appearance for R3
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R. KALAIMATHI,J.
The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
25.03.2019 passed in W.P. No. 22471 of 2018.
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
2. Notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, but there is no
representation on their behalf.
3. The 3rd respondent Union had filed the writ petition for a
mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to forthwith refer the existing
dispute regarding discriminative promotion policy in the appellant
Management on the basis of the Failure Report dated 19.10.2016 submitted
by the 2nd respondent herein.
4. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the Court was
informed that the 1st respondent herein had already referred the issue
whether the claim of the Management of BHEL, Ranipet that the members
of Supervisors Union were not workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was correct and if not, whether the demand of
the Supervisors Union of BHEL-BAP, Ranipet for wage upgradation to S1
to S3 Grade Supervisors was legal and justified. Further, it was submitted
that as the terms of reference, stated above, had been referred for
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, nothing remains
for adjudication in the writ petition.
5. However, it was submitted on behalf of the Supervisors Union
that the dispute which was raised before the authority concerned was with
regard to the promotion policy of the appellant Management and that the
terms of reference for adjudication were completely different and do not
pertain to promotion policy at all.
6. In the aforesaid circumstance and after considering the
submissions made on behalf of the Union, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
"4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the subsequent development, as
aforementioned, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the terms of reference, it is always open to the
petitioner to approach the 1st respondent to suitable modify the
terms of reference or seek for additional terms of reference on the
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
basis of the dispute raised by them before the conciliation authority.
This Court is of the considered view that it would be suffice to direct
the Government to consider the representation/objection dated
12.1.2018, submitted by the petitioner and pass orders within a
particular time frame.
5. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is
directed to consider the objection/representation of the petitioner,
as projected in their letter dated 12.01.2018 and pass appropriate
orders on merits and in accordance with law. The 1 st respondent is
also directed to consider the issue of modifying the terms of
reference, already made, in line with the requirement of the
petitioner Union or may refer additional terms of reference in
regard to the promotion policy adopted by the 2nd respondent, which
is the subject matter of dispute raised by the petitioner Union. The
1st respondent is directed to consider the above and pass
appropriate orders on the representation/objection dated
12.01.2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order."
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
Challenging the said order, the Management has preferred this writ
appeal.
7. When the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this
Court that the terms of reference sent for adjudication vide order dated
30.10.2018 by the Ministry of Labour was taken up in I.D. No. 9 of 2010 by
the Industrial Tribunal. As there was no representation on behalf of the
Supervisors Union, the said I.D. was dismissed on 07.02.2020 and the said
order had become final.
8. Once the matter had been referred for adjudication, the relief
sought in the writ petition had become infructuous and nothing survived for
adjudication. In such circumstance, the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge, extracted supra, were uncalled for. Hence, the order passed in
W.P. No. 22471 of 2019 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No
costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (R.K.M.J.)
nv 11.04.2023
To
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Labour
& Employment,
Shram Shakthi Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
AND
R. KALAIMATHI,J.
nv
W.A. No. 2029 of 2019
11.04.2023
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
