Madras High Court
Tnpl Podhy Thozilalar Sangam vs The General Manager (H.R.) on 22 October, 2009
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22/10/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
W.P.(MD) No.5472 of 2009
TNPL Podhy Thozilalar Sangam,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
P.Dhandapani,
S/o. Periyasamy,
No.16, Nanapparappu Road,
Pugalur Sugar Factory Post,
Karur District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The General Manager (H.R.),
Human Resources,
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and
Papers Limited,
Kaakithapuram,
Karur District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Election Observer,
Nehruji Nagar,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records
relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent herein made in
HR/18/2006 dated 14.02.2009 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner's
union is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents herein to give due
and adequate recognition to the petitioner's union in all respects in order to
represent before the 1st respondent on behalf of the employees of Tamil Nadu
Newsprint and Papers Limited.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Saravanan
^For Respondents
R1 ... Mr.V.M.Shivakumar
Mr.K.Baskaran
R2 ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy,
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed, praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in HR/18/2006, dated 14.02.2009, and quash the same, in so far as the petitioner's union is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents herein to give due and adequate recognition to the petitioner's union to represent its members before the first respondent.
2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issues raised in the present writ petition are to be agitated before the concerned Labour Court/Tribunal, by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He had also placed before this Court, a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, reported in 1986 II L.L.N. Rajasthan High Court 228 (Hindustan Copper Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Ministry of Labour, Government of India and others), to show that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot quash the recognition given to a particular employees union and it cannot accord recognition to the representative union, having exclusive right to be a bargaining agent for the workmen of the establishment concern.
3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the first respondent, had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the issues arising in the writ petition, are to be agitated before the appropriate Forum, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the first respondent.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, and it will be open to the parties concerned to raise all the issues before the concerned Forum. No costs.
cs To
1.The General Manager (H.R.), Human Resources, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Kaakithapuram, Karur District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Election Observer, Nehruji Nagar, Dindigul, Dindigul District.