Madras High Court
V.R. Kannan vs 3 The Union Of India on 26 September, 2023
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
V.R. Kannan Appellant
v
1 The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sastri Bhavan I Floor
No.26, Haddows Road
Chennai 600 006
2 The Airport Authority of India
represented by its Airport Director
International Airport Division
Chennai Airport
Chennai 600 027
3 The Union of India
represented by Secretary
Civil and Aviation Ministry
New Delhi Respondents
Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging
the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.34022 of 2013.
For appellant Mr. S.T. Varadarajalu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
------
1/8
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
This writ appeal calls into question the legality and validity of the
order dated 03.07.2023 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.34022 of 2013.
2 For the sake of clarity, the appellant, the first respondent and the
second respondent will be adverted to as the workman, the Tribunal and
Management, respectively.
3 The gist of the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ appeal are
as follows:
3.1 The appellant joined the services of the Management as Apron
Sweeper in 1988 as a daily wager and his services were terminated in 1997 (as
per paragraph 10 of the claim petition). He addressed a representation seeking
regularisation of his services on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Air India Statutory Corporation & others v United Labour
Union & Others (1997) 9 SCC 377, which was negatived by the Management
vide order dated 23.12.1999 on the ground that he attended the office last on
11.06.1994 and he was not employed under contract system as on 06.12.1996,
being the date of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
3.2 Thereafter, he preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.2022 of
2001 seeking conferment of permanent status as per Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981, with backwages and benefits, which was dismissed vide
order dated 02.02.2001, finding that there was no material whatsoever to
support the case of the workman that he was working as a contract labour on
the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court, viz., 06.12.1996. However, the
Single Bench, upon request made by the learned counsel for the workman,
directed the Management to consider the workman's representation dated
05.04.2000 and pass orders. Seemingly, no orders were passed on the said
representation and he had addressed another representation dated 12.02.2001.
3.3 Thereafter, the workman filed a second writ petition being
W.P.No.34117 of 2004 seeking regularisation of his services as per Section 3,
ibid. However, noting that the workman had been terminated from service, the
said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2012, as having
become infructuous, however, with liberty to challenge the termination order.
3.4 Thereafter, on failure of conciliation proceedings, the workman
filed a claim petition in 2013 before the Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was returned on 31.10.2013 on the
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
ground that the said petition was hit by Section 2-A(3), ibid., i.e., it was filed
belatedly. In the order returning the claim petition, the Tribunal had noted
that in paragraph 10 of the claim petition, the workman had stated that he was
denied employment in 1997, whereas, in the prayer portion of the claim
petition, he had stated that he was denied employment in 2001.
3.5 The aforesaid order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Tribunal was
challenged by the workman in W.P. No.34022 of 2013. The Single Bench,
considering the facts of the case, more so, the fact that the workman is aged
more than 58 years, upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ
petition, challenging which, the workman has preferred this writ appeal.
4 Heard the learned counsel for the workman and perused the
materials available on record.
5 At the threshold, it is to be pointed out that this is the third round
of writ petition by the workman. As rightly observed by the Tribunal in the
order dated 31.10.2013, in the prayer portion of the claim petition, the
workman has averred that he was denied employment in 2001 and in
paragraph 10 of the claim petition, he has averred that he was denied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employment in 1997. From this, it is quite evident that he himself was not sure
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
as to from which day, he was denied employment. Even as per his
representation dated 12.02.2001, he was disengaged from service in 1997.
Further, it is noteworthy that the prayer sought in the first writ petition being
W.P. No.2022 of 2001 is no different from the prayer sought by him in the
second writ petition being W.P. No.34117 of 2004.
6 Be that as it may, after receipt of the failure report dated
29.08.2013, the workman had approached the Tribunal in view of amendment
to Section 2-A, ibid. and as observed earlier, the Tribunal has returned the
claim petition primarily on the ground that there is a delay on the part of the
workman in approaching the Tribunal, besides noticing the two different dates
furnished by the workman in the claim petition qua his denial of employment.
In the considered view of this Court, the action of the Tribunal in returning the
claim petition is illegal. However, the said plea has not been taken by the
workman. Once an industrial dispute is raised, a duty is cast upon the Tribunal
to adjudicate the dispute and pass orders, unless the parties arrive at an
amicable settlement and produce the settlement before the Tribunal to pass
orders in terms of such settlement. However, in the case on hand, taking note
of the fact that the Management, viz., the Airport Authority is amenable to writ
jurisdiction of this Court in the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court in Indian Bank v K.S. Gurumoorthy [(1990) 2 LLN 355], which
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
is a case arising out of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1948,
we hold that the industrial dispute itself needs to be rejected on the ground
that the workman himself was not sure of the date of his termination.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed sans costs.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
26.09.2023
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
To
1 The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Sastri Bhavan I Floor
No.26, Haddows Road
Chennai 600 006
2 The Airport Director
Airport Authority of India
International Airport Division
Chennai Airport
Chennai 600 027
3 The Secretary
Civil and Aviation Ministry
New Delhi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR., J.
cad
W.A. No.2601 of 2023
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
