Madras High Court
S.Elumalai vs The Labour Assistant ... on 21 September, 2023
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
W.P.No.23301 of 2009 :-
S.Elumalai ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Labour Assistant Commissioner,
(Conciliation -1)
Kuralagam,
Chennai 108.
2. G.S.K.Consumer Service,
Post Office No.15,
Gurhan – 122 002.
3. Durandel Foods Private Limited,
No.71, Chettipunniam,
Kancheepuram District,
Pin- 603 204. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the Order in Na.Ka.No.1018 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 passed
by the first respondent and quash the same and to further direct the first
respondent to proceed with the conciliation and issue failure report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
In all W.Ps.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 & R3 : No appearance
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders
passed by the first respondent dated 28.05.2008, thereby rejecting the
conciliation proceedings.
2. The petitioner in all the writ petitions were working under
the third respondent for the past 20 years. The third respondent was
doing the packing part of the work for Horlicks. While being so, on
28.01.2007, the third respondent had suddenly announced closure of its
factory, which was running with huge profits. The second respondent is
being the principal employer is liable for the illegal acts of the third
respondent.
3. Therefore, the petitioner raised industrial dispute under
Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter called as “the I.D.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
Act”), before the first respondent. However, the first respondent rejected
the industrial dispute on the ground that already all the petitioners were
settled with all benefits under the settlement arrived under Section 12(B)
of the I.D. Act, between the petitioners and the third respondent.
Aggrieved by the same the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the material placed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all writ
petitions submitted that the first respondent failed to exercise its
jurisdiction properly. The first respondent gone beyond its jurisdiction
and made observations alien to the settlement. He also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in
W.A.No.432 of 2005 dated 01.03.2005 in the case of Management of
Reckitt and Benckiser (India) Ltd., Vs. United Labour Federation and
ors., in which this Court held that there is difference between the
conciliation and adjudication. In conciliation proceedings, no rights are
decided and no binding order can be passed by the Conciliation Officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
The purpose of conciliation is to try to bring the parties to an amicable
settlement by persuasion, reasoning, etc., without need to go in for
adjudication. It may be mentioned that the duty of the Conciliation
Officer is only to mediate and try to promote a settlement of the
industrial dispute without going to Court. The functions of the
Conciliation Officer are not judicial or quasi-judicial but are only
administrative in nature.
6. The above judgement is squarely applicable to the case on
hand, since the first respondent rejected the industrial dispute raised by
the petitioners under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, on the ground that he
could not proceed with the matter due to the settlement under 12(3) of
the I.D. Act entered between the petitioners and the third respondent.
Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and it cannot sustain, since the
first respondent has no jurisdiction to reject the issue for adjudication.
The first respondent is a Conciliation Officer and the purpose of
conciliation is to try to bring the parties viz., the petitioners and the third
respondent to an amicable settlement. In fact, the petitioners are disputed
the alleged agreement entered between them with the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
Therefore, the impugned orders passed in all these writ petitions cannot
be sustained and they are liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.05.2008, passed
by the first respondent in all the writ petitions are hereby quashed and the
first respondent is directed to proceed with the conciliation proceedings
between the petitioners and the third respondent. If no settlement arrived
between the petitioners and the third respondent, the first respondent
shall send a failure report to the appropriate forum.
8. With the above directions, all the writ petitions are allowed.
There shall be no order as to cost.
21.09.2023
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
rts
To
1. The Labour Assistant Commissioner,
(Conciliation -1)
Kuralagam,
Chennai 108.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
W.P.Nos.23301 to 23312 of 2009
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
