P.SATHASIVAMWRIT PETITION NO.11911 of 2004 & WPMP No.14005 of 2004 I.D.P.L.Employees Union v. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hemavathy Formulation Stores Assistant 2000The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ss. 9A, 33
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.07.2006C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAMWRIT PETITION NO.11911 of 2004 & WPMP No.14005 of 2004 I.D.P.L.Employees Union, No.5 & 6, Shopping complex,I.D.P.L. Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai-600 009.... Petitioner vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Conciliation) 1, Third Floor, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.
Management of I.D.P.L.(Tamil Nadu) Ltd., Nandambakkam, Chennai-600 089...RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India forissuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent not toalter the service condition of the employees whose names are furnishedin the annexure to this affidavit including discontinuing theirservices or which will result in losing employment in violation ofsection 9A and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and till finality isattained on the dispute raised by the petitioner union on 15.03.2004before the first respondent regarding regularisation . For petitioner ... Mr.Balan Haridas For 1st Respondent ... Mrs.D.Geetha, Addl. Government Pleader For 2nd respondent ... Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahamed
O R D E RBy consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken upfor disposal.2. It is not in dispute that 34 employees whose names areannexed hereunder are still working under the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is ofthe considered view that it is suffice to direct the respondents notto discontinue the services of the said 34 employees. Therefore, therespondents are directed not to discontinue the service of the 34 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employees till finality is attained by the lower authority in regardto the dispute of regularisation of the 34 employees. Annexure S.No. NameDepartment Year of joining1. J.SrinivasanCanteen Cashier/issuing token 19802. K.Anandan Cook in canteen 19793. P.Ramadoss Cook in canteen 19864. C.Shanthakumar Sweeper/Cleaning 19865. P.Sekar Cook in canteen 19876. E.Anandan Formulation Helper 19887. D.Shanmugam Canteen Helper 19888.
K.Ramu Formulation – Helper 19889. C.Kumar Formulation – Helper 198810. R.Gajendran Formulation – Helper 198811. D.Karnan Formulation – Helper 199012. M.Rajendran Formulation – Helper 199213. K.Partheepan Stores- Helper 198214. Ramanammal Civil – Sweeper 197915. C.Nagaraj Civil – Helper 198216.G.Ramanaiah Civil – Helper 198717. J.Srinivasan Civil – Helper 198718. V.Sivakumar Civil – Helper 198719. Kondammal Civil – Sweeper 198820. V.Sivakumar Civil – Helper 199021. P.Krishnamurthy G.M.Driver 198722. S.Bernard Formulation – Helper 198623. M.Umamaheswari Commercial – Typist 199824. J.Sasikala Accounts -Computer Operator 199825. K.Gajalakshmi Accounts – Computer Operator 199926. M.Priya Accounts – Computer Operator 199927. Merlin Anitha Stores – Typist 199928. S.Yamunadevi Accounts Clerk 200129. R.Premila Accounts – Bill 200130. K.Kavitha Accounts – Clerk 200231. S.Anandhy Civil – Typist 200132. P.Vimala Personnal Typist 199933.
Operative part
K.Rajendran Civil Helper 199034. K.Hemavathy Formulation Stores Assistant 2000 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.W.P.M.P.No.14005 of 2004 is closed.raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Conciliation) 1, Third Floor, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.2.Management of I.D.P.L.(Tamil Nadu) Ltd., Nandambakkam, Chennai-600 089.ONE CC TO M/S N. ISHTIAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE SR NO 33463W.P.NO.11911 of 200428.07.2006VC(CO)BP/4.8.06
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hemavathy Formulation Stores Assistant 2000The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — ss. 9A, 33.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.