Skip to content


Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnertra Sangam, by Its Secretary K. Karunakaran Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu by Its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1979)2MLJ409
AppellantSankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnertra Sangam, by Its Secretary K. Karunakaran
RespondentThe Government of Tamil Nadu by Its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and anr.
Excerpt:
- securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12) of section 19 of recovery of debts due to bank is and financial institutions act, it would be clear that the tribunal also has..........they should enquire into the alleged misconduct of 19 workmen and submit their decision to the minister for labour of the state government for his final decision and action. this was by mutual agreement entered into between the second respondent the workers before the minister for labour on 1st july, 1971. pursuant to such accord disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the second respondent against the said workmen who dismissed the entire lot of them, but as provided under the agreement referred to above, the subject-matter was referred to the minister for labour for his ultimate decision in the matter. it is common ground that the minister for labour after reviewing the situation was of the view that 14 out of the 19 workmen should be taken back to employment as new entrants and.....
Judgment:

Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.

1. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in G. O. Rt. No. 708. Labour and Employment dated 5th April, 1975. The circumstances which led to the filing of the writ petition may be briefly stated. Certain disputes arose as between the second respondent--management and its workers A domestic adjustment was made as between the management and the workmen in and by which they agreed that they should enquire into the alleged misconduct of 19 workmen and submit their decision to the Minister for Labour of the State Government for his final decision and action. This was by mutual agreement entered into between the second respondent the workers before the Minister for Labour on 1st July, 1971. Pursuant to such accord disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the second respondent against the said workmen who dismissed the entire lot of them, but as provided under the agreement referred to above, the subject-matter was referred to the Minister for Labour for his ultimate decision in the matter. It is common ground that the Minister for Labour after reviewing the situation was of the view that 14 out of the 19 workmen should be taken back to employment as new entrants and that the decision in the disciplinary proceedings as against the remaining 5 workers should stand/ The five workers were not satisfied with the ultimate decision of the Minister for Labour, though under the accord dated 1st July, 1971, between the management and the workmen concerned they had agreed upon such a course and had left the matter ultimately for the decision of the Minister for Labour, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings by the management. They therefore raised an industrial dispute. The necessary conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Labour Officer, Salem, and the report of the Labour Officer was also considered by the Government which was by then asked to refer the non-employment of the five workers to the Industrial Court. The Government, after calling for the conciliation report from the Labour Officer, Salem, and in consultation with the Commissioner for Labour, were of the view that there was not sufficient material for them to act under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The main reason which prompted the Government not to make a reference under Section 10-A was that the subject-matter from the inception was governed by the accord dated 1st July, 1971, and that the management having fully submitted themselves to the letter and sprit of that accord, and as the Minister for Labour was of the view that there was justification for the non-employment of the five workers, they would not exercise their jurisdiction under Section 10-A and refer the matter to the Industrial Court. Consequent upon each refusal the present writ petition out of which this appeal arises, was filed to quash the order of the Government under which they refused to act under Section 10-A.

2. It is not for the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to remove an order made by the Government in due exercise of their statutory authority, after being satisfied as to the merits of the case. Certiorari is a writ issued for the removal of orders made by quasi-judicial Tribunals who are statutory functionaries or functionaries exercising quasi-judicial powers. It is only in cases where the Court is satisfied that there is an error apparent or deliberate non-exercise of jurisdiction which the statutory Tribunal has or while exercising jurisdiction the principles of natural justice have been violated that a writ of certiorari is issued to quash such orders made by quasi-judicial Tribunals Mohan, J., considered the facts and came to the conclusion that on merits the State Government was satisfied that the non-employment of the five workers having been the subjectmatter of the earlier accord dated 1st July, 1971, and that having been finalised in terms thereof, there were no further grounds for recongideation of the matter. Such decisions can be arrived at by the State Government in exercise of their powers under the act. There has been no improper exercise of power or jurisdiction which alone can compel the Court to issue a rule under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rightly therefore Mohan, J. dismissed the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere. The writ appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //