Madras High Court
M/S Khizaria Leather Ex. ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 March, 2023
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 and
W.P.No.23778 of 2015
M/s Khizaria Leather Ex. Employees
Welfare Association (Regn.No.48/2012)
Rep. by its Secretary Mr.A.Janakiraman
2A, Muthalamman Koil Campus
Swamy Street, Ranipet – 632 401 Petitioner in
Vellore District. .. both W.Ps
vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Department of Labour and Employment
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commission of Labour
O/o Commissioner of Labour
DMS Campus, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Management of Khizaria Leathers Ltd.
91-B, MBT Road
Ranipet, Valaja Taluk, Vellore District.
4. The Management of Victory Associates
91-B, MBT Road
Ranipet, Valaja Taluk Respondents in
Vellore District. .. both W.Ps
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
Prayer in W.P.No.32350 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records pertaining to the order made in Na.Ka.No.C3/40385/2013
dated 20.12.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and
consequently directing the 1st respondent to permit the workmen/ members
of the petitioner association to apply directly to the State Government for
the Revenue Recovery Certificate under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial
Dispute Act without any judicial adjudication on the issue relating to the
closure of the 3rd respondent establishment;
Prayer in W.P.No.23778 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records pertaining to the order made in Letter No.22081/P2/2014-7
dated 02.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 1st
respondent to review the order dated 12.01.2000 exempting the 3rd
respondent from seeking permission for closure of the establishment under
Section 25(o)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
For the Petitioners in : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
both W.Ps
For the Respondents in : Mr.Arun Kumar
both W.Ps Additional Government Pleader
for respondent 1 & 2
Mr.R.Dinesh
for M/s Ahmad Associates
for respondent 3
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
Ms.Reena Mohanasudaram
for M/s Devadasan & Sagar
for respondent 4
in W.P.No.32350 of 2014
Mr.K.Suthan
for respondent 4
in W.P.No.23778 of 2015
COMMON ORDER
The order passed by the Labour Commissioner, granting liberty to the
petitioner / Association to raise the industrial disputes by following the
procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is under challenge in the
present writ petitions.
2. The petitioner is M/s.Khazaria Leather Export Employees'
Association under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act. The petitioner /
Association states that originally there were 715 workers engaged by the
third respondent management and there were several disputes. The members
of the petitioner / Association were forced to give resignation letters on the
assurance that they would be taken back.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
3. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third
respondent states that, exemption orders were already granted under Section
25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the case of the petitioner
Association cannot be considered. It is further contended that the exemption
order granted under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act was
challenged by the Trade Union concerned by filing two writ petitions and
these two writ petitions were dismissed and accordingly, the order of
exemption was confirmed by the High Court of Madras.
4. Beyond the facts stated above, the petitioner is a Welfare
Association, therefore, labour disputes cannot be represented through the
Welfare Association. The Trade Union labourers, in respect of the
employees working in the third respondent Management, already filed a writ
petition, which was rejected and the exemption order issued under Section
25(o) was confirmed. If at all the original workers, who are all the members
of the petitioner / Association are aggrieved, it is open for them to put forth
their grievances only through their Trade Union, the members or in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
any other individual capacity, as the case may be, and by following the
procedures as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. Thus the petitioner / Welfare Association has no locus standi to
maintain labour disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act. In respect of the
above principles, this Court considered the same in W.P (MD) No.7555 of
2012 dated 14.08.2012 in the case of The Indian Southern Region Postal
Pensioners Welfare Association vs The Union of India, through the
Secretary of India to Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment cited supra are extracted hereunder:
“2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the
maintainability of the writ on the ground, that writ on
behalf of the Association in service matters is not
maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court,
in W.P. No.41633 of 2006 decided on 23.11.2011 (Tamil
Nadu Public Works Department and Highways
Employees Union Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others)
and the judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.(MD) No.4544 of 2012 decided on
11.04.2012 (Association of Veteran Employees of
Minority Academic Recognised Institutions of all kind,
vs. the Secretary to Government and others).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
contends that the writ as framed would maintainable, in
view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of
Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar
and others vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and
another (AIR 1984 46), wherein it was held that an
Association of persons for enforcement of the rights of
its member as distinguished from its own right is
maintainable. The petitioner cannot draw any
advantage from the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court, in view of the judgments of this Court
holding that a writ petition on behalf of the association,
in service matter is not maintainable. Otherwise in this
judgment also, it is held that an association whether
registered or unregistered cannot maintain a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
enforcement or protection of rights of its members, as
distinguished from enforcement of its own rights.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placed
reliance in judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Committee of Management and another vs Vice
Chancellor and others reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 323
(SC), laying down that the existence of alternative
remedy cannot be a ground to refuse exercise of writ
jurisdiction, when the order is passed by an authority
without jurisdiction or is in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
5. The reliance was thereafter placed on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam
Company vs. State of Haryana and others (1985 (3) SCC
267). This judgment is again on the exercise of writ
jurisdiction in spite of availability of alternative remedy.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
placed reliance on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(i) Babubhai Jamnadas Patel vs. State of Gujarat
and others (2009(9) SCC 610);
(ii) Fertilizer Corporaton Kamagar Union
(Regd)., and others vs. Union of India and others (AIR
1981 SC 344);
(iii) State of West Bengal and others vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal and others reported in (2010 (3) SCC 571);
(iv) The Union of India and another vs. SPS
VAINS (RETD) AND OTHER reported in 2008(9) SCC
125 and
(v) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
D.S.Nakara and others vs.Union of India (1983 (1) SCC
305) ;
7. In none of these cases, the question whether the
writ petition on
behalf of association in service matters, has not been
decided or considered.
8. In absence of any decision to the contrary of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a writ on behalf of
the association in service matters is competent, this
Court is bound by the decision of this Court in W.P.
No.41633 of 2006 decided on 23.11.2011 (Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department and Highways Employees
Union Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) and the
judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(MD) No.4544 of 2012 decided on 11.04.2012
(Association of Veteran Employees of Minority
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
Academic Recognised Institutions of all kind, vs. the
Secretary to Government and others).
9. The writ petition on behalf of the association
therefore is not competent, and is accordingly dismissed
as not competent.
10. However, this order shall not a bar to
individual members of an association to have their
grievances redressed by filing a writ petition in their
capacity, as singularly or jointly with the permission of
this Court. No costs.”
6. In view of the principles and based on the judgment cited supra,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not
maintainable, since it is filed by the Welfare Association challenging the
labour disputes. Accordingly, the evicted labourers / workmen are at liberty
to approach the competent authority or forum, as the case may be, by
following the procedures as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid
liberty. There will be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes/No 09.03.2023
Neutral Order:Yes/No (½)
drm
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
To:
1. The Secretary
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Department of Labour and Employment
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commission of Labour
O/o Commissioner of Labour
DMS Campus, Chennai – 600 006.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 &
23778 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
(drm)
W.P.Nos.32350 of 2014 and
W.P.No.23778 of 2015
09.03.2023
(½)
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
