✦ High Court of India · 13 Mar 2024

ent of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Limited v. K.B.Joshi Ors

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Mar 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Mar 2024

Bench

SINGLE LEARNED SINGLE

Length

1,361 words

Acts & Sections

ID Act 1947 Industrial Disputes Act 1947

WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.03.2024CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYWA Nos.721, 739, 765, 708, 717, 710, 692, 713, 700, 702, 719, 694, 689, 754, 709, 706, 726, 724, 723, 690, 698, 707, 695, 688, 722, 704, 685, 697, 715, 712, 714, 699, 703, 746, 742, 755, 683, 753 of 2024WA No.721 of 2024 Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering (A division of Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd.,)Chengalpattu Sriperumbudur road,Pondr Village & Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kanchipuram District 602 105rep. By its Factory manager, Prakash T.: Appellantversus1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-I) Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District 2.K.Senthil: RespondentsPrayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge in WMP No.17675 of 2022 in WP No.3558 of 2022 dated 25.04.2023.Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchFor the Appellant : Mr.A.L.Somayaji,Senior Counselfor Mr.C.Manohar GuptaFor Respondent No.1 : Mr.C.Kathiravan,Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.2:Mr.K.M.Ramesh,Senior Counsel,for Mr.K.BharathiCOMMON JUDGMENT(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)We have heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent.2. These writ appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in an application filed by the employees under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act').Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batch3. The employer filed writ petitions against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Sriperumbudur, under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. Under the said order, the petition by the employer seeking approval to the action of dismissal from service taken against the employees is refused. The employer had challenged the same by filing writ petitions. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the employees have filed an application under Section 17B of the ID Act. The same is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals.4. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, strenuously contends that all the findings in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour are in favour of the employer. In rarest of rare cases, the benefit of Section 17B of the ID Act can be denied to an employee. According to him, the authority has come to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, standing order and the principles of natural justice and that the case for dismissal has been proved on the basis of legally admissible evidence. However, only because the employer did not wait Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchfor the advice of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the dismissal of the employees cannot be held to be bad in law. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the said aspect and as a matter of course, allowed the application under Section 17 B of the ID Act.5. The learned Senior Counsel, to buttress his submission, placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Limited vs. K.B.Joshi & Ors. (1987 Lab IC 1468); so also the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. General Secretary, All India Vysya Bank Employees' Union (1994(1) KarLJ 15). He also referred to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. P.Kumaraswamy and Ors., [2004(2)) LLN 414(Mad)].6. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel for the employees.7. Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 is a beneficial provision. Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchSection 17B provides that where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court.8. The proviso to the said Section provides that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.9. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that in some of the appeals herein, counter-affidavit is filed of the Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchemployees being gainfully employed elsewhere. However, we do not find any document in support of the same, except a bald statement in the counter-affidavit. 10. The Conciliation Officer had observed that the domestic inquiry has been conducted in accordance with law and principles of natural justice and that prima facie case for dismissal has been proved on the basis of evidence. The Conciliation Officer has further observed that during the conciliation talks held on 09.01.2020, an agreement was reached between the management and the union as per the accepted advices, and the strike came to an end. In Clause 3 of the Agreed Advice dated 09.01.2020, which took place in the presence of Additional Labour Commissioner, Chennai, it has been stated that both the management and the workers' side have accepted and signed the advice as follows:“Both the parties agreed that the management would take a final decision based on the advice of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour – 1 (Conciliation), Sriperumbudur after submission of the final enquiry report Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchpertaining to the disciplinary action taken by the management against the 51 workers.”11. The same was agreed upon by the management and the workers' side. It has been observed by the conciliation officer that before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation, could advice, the employer took the action of dismissing the employees from service and on that count, the authority came to the conclusion that the action of the employer is a retaliatory action. 12. No doubt, the aforesaid finding is a subject-matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge will have to decide the matter on its own merits.13. Considering the limited scope of Section 17B of the ID Act, and the beneficial purpose for which the said provision is enacted, the facts and circumstances of the case do not necessitate interference of this Court with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in allowing the application under Section 17B of the ID Act.Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batch14. The observations made herein above are only prima facie in nature and the learned Single Judge would certainly consider the matter on its own merits.15. At this stage, Mr.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the writ petitions be directed to be decided expeditiously. The said request can be made by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge may endeavour to decide the writ petitions expeditiously as per his convenience.16. The writ appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.4820, 4825, 4805, 4816, 4817, 4896, 4901, 4904, 4906, 4912, 4918, 4922, 5017, 4797, 4979, 4985, 4995, 5012, 4855, 5013, 4829, 4835, 4840, 4846, 4847, 4849, 4852, 4857, 4858, 4859, 4860, 4864, 4865, 4866, 4870, 5024, 5028, 5078 of 2024 are closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 13.03.2024 Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NotarPage 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchTo1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-I) Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA Nos.721 of 2024 etc. batchTHE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICEAND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.(tar) WA Nos.721 of 2024 batch13.03.2024Page 10 of 10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under ID Act 1947