Madras High Court
M/S.Ucal Fuel Systems Limited vs The Principal Labour Court on 5 November, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.11.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.29853 of 2012 M/s.UCAL Fuel Systems Limited rep.by its Chief Security Officer N.Rajendran Raheja Towers, Delta Wing Unit 705, 177 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Labour Court Chennai 600 104 2. M/s.Bharat Technologies Auto Components Ltd., Raheja Towers (7th floor), Delta Wing Unit 708, 177 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 3. Hosur Bharat Technologies Auto Companies Employees'Union (5/KR1) Rep.by its Secretary 3, Kamarajar Colony 3rd cross Hosur 635 109 4. The Management of Sundaram Auto Components Ltd., (Frames Division) Plot No.1, T.V.S.Industrial Estate Harita Hosur 635 109 5. The Management of Thai Summit Neel Auto (P) Ltd., Plot Nos.1 & 6, T.V.S.Industrial Estate Hosur 635 109 .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.A.No.15 of2012 in I.D.No.279 of 2009 dated 8.10.2012 and quash the same. For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Elango For Respondent-2 :: Mr.S.Vaidyanathan O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed by the management seeking to challenge an order passed by the Principal Labour Court, namely the 1st respondent in I.A.No.15 of 2012 in I.D.No.279 of 2012 dated 8.10.2012.
2. A reference was made to the Labour Court by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Labour Court. The reference relates to the non-employment of 17 workers and also their illegal transfer from Hosur to Maraimalai Nagar. In the reference, 3 managements were shown as respondents.
3. The 2nd respondent Management filed I.A.No.15 of 2012 before the Labour Court seeking for inspection of sites situated at E 16, Industrial Complex, Maraimalai Nagar and 11 B/1, First Cross Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-58 on a Saturday along with both counsel to ascertain the facts mentioned and the statement made by the management in the proof affidavit after giving a reasonable notice to the necessary parties. The application was filed under Section 11 read with Rule 42 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment Rules, 1958 for entry and inspection.
4. On notice in the Interlocutory Application, the present petitioner filed a counter statement resisting the request for inspection. It is their stand that they have taken only lease of the Maraimalai Nagar premises the land and building in the year 2006 and no machineries were taken from the management.
5. The Labour Court after hearing the parties passed a detailed order dated 8.10.2012, which became the subject matter of the present litigation. In that order, the Labour Court appointed a Commissioner for inspecting the two premises set out and the Commissioner was appointed for the following acts:
"i. Take inventory of the movable and immovable property situated in the said address including machineries.
ii. To direct the management to produce the copies of list of employees with their name and address in both the premises.
Iii. File a statement with regard to nature of work carried on in both the premises if necessary and evidence.
iv. Interrogating any person therein in respect o the subject matter of the warrant and also record their statement and v. Advocate Commissioner is directed to file the name of the companies list of Directors and shareholders if any in both the addresses.
The Advocate Commissioner is directed to visit the places after giving due notice either to the counsel or the parties. His fee of sum of Rs.20,000/- is fixed as initial remuneration and the same shall be paid to him directly by the petitioner."
Challenging this order, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
6. The contention of the management was that the scheme of amalgamaton was accepted and there has been valid lis between the parties and it is unnecessary to seek for such details and the facts are not in dispute. It is also stated that the Labour Court has gone beyond the proof, namely what was originally called for inspecting and taking note of the features, the Labour Court also called for all kinds of details. It is under such circumstances, the Writ Petition came to be filed.
7. Heard Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel leading Mr.P.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel taking notice for the 2nd respondent management.
8. The learned senior counsel stated that there is a distinction between the principal company and the subsidiary company and they cannot be treated as one entity. But, however, at this stage, the legal contention of the management regarding the merits of the dispute cannot be gone into.
9. It is suffice to state that under Section 11(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court can appoint one or more persons having special knowledge of the mater under consideration as assessor or assessors to advice it in the proceeding before it. It also has powers under the Rules framed by the State Government known as Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, to order for entry and inspection of the records. It also includes the entry into the building, factory, workshop, or other place or premises and after reasonable notice for inspecting the same or any work, machinery, appliance or article or interrogating any person in respect of anything situated therein or any matter relevant to the subject matter of the conciliation, investigation, enquiry or adjudication. Apart from these things, under Rule 49, if any assessor is appointed, the court can obtain the advice of such assessors, but such advice shall not bind the adjudicator.
10. In the present case, the trial is yet to commence and it is only at the stage of gathering materials and records for the purpose of adjudication. Even assuming that the present enquiry ordered by the Advocate Commissioner was not palatable to the management, there is time enough for the management to object the materials gathered either as not relevant or as not admissible in evidence.
11. The legal contention regarding the corporate nature of the subsidiary as well as the principal company can be made the subject matter of argument. But, at this stage, stalling the proceedings of the Labour Court will be the gross injustice to the workman, who raised the dispute.
12. The Supreme Court has time and again forewarned the courts below from interfering with any interim order passed by the adjudicating authorities. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K.Verma vs. Mahesh Chandra reported in 1983 (4) SCC 214. The Supreme Court has held that stalling the adjudication proceeding at every stage of the dispute cannot be countenanced by the courts. By the impugned order, the petitioner management cannot be said to be aggrieved, in the sense that there is no valid adjudication on the materials be gathered by the impugned order. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the present impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
ajr To
1. The Principal Labour Court Chennai 600 104