The High Court · 2025

WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchKancheepuram District- 602 1172.Karthik SS/o. Selvam RNo.37/33, Chitteri Kizl Kandig,Chitteri Post, Arakkonam Taluk,Vellore - 631 003....RespondentWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the order dated 26.05.2025 passed in Na.Ka.N.A No.40 of 2025 in A.P.No. 434 of 2020 on the file of the 1st Respondent/Respondent Authority.For Petitioner (s): Mr.S.Ravi,in all WP Nos. Senior Advocate for Mr.M.KandasamyFor Respondent(s): Mrs.M.Jayanthy, in all WP Nos. Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.S.Kumaraswamy for R2 dt. 09/10/25COMMON ORDERWrit petition is filed for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 26.05.2025, passed in Na.Ka.N.A.No. 40 of 2025 in A.P.No.434 of 2020.2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batch2. This is a batch of 41 writ petitions and since, the challenge in all the writ petitions are to the order of the 1st respondent dated, 26.05.2025, considering the identity of the issues raised, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.3. The averments made in the affidavit in support of W.P.No.32541 of 2025, is taken as a lead case.4. The facts briefly stated are as follows:The petitioner is a factory located at Sriperumbudur, and is engaged in manufacture of automotive interior and exterior components like IP parts, handles pillar trims, under body parts, lifesaving machine components and electronic charge points. On 10.08.2019, the workmen represented by their union named Chengai Anna Maavatta Jananaayaga Thozhilalar Sangam submitted a charter of demands to the petitioner. Meanwhile, on 12.08.2019, a strike notice was issued to the petitioner that the workmen would indulge in strike with effect from 26.08.2019. After the work strike 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchnotice, negotiations were held in the presence of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Conciliation Officer. During the pendency of the negotiations, the petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the erring workmen around 51 in number. Since strike continued for more than 100 days, the negotiations were conducted in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation I). In the conciliation proceedings, before the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation-I, the union and the management arrived at an agreed advice on 09.01.2020. In the agreed advise, the parties accepted that the disciplinary action against 51 workers would continue. However, the final decision would be taken after consulting the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation -I by submitting the enquiry findings. In the said agreed advice, it was also accepted by both the parties, that all the workers except 51 workers against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated would resume work from 13.01.2020, and few other terms were also agreed. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were concluded and in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer found that the charges against the delinquent workmen were proved. The petitioner as per the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, addressed a letter to the Additional 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchCommissioner of Labour, Conciliation -I, vide letter’s dated 13.07.2020 and 14.07.2020, to provide its views on the findings of the enquiry officer. Since no response was forthcoming, the petitioner after following due procedure, imposed the punishment of dismissal on the delinquent workmen. The petitioner also filed Approval Petitions seeking approval of its dismissal orders. The 1st respondent vide order dated 29.10.2021, dismissed the Approval Petitions on the ground of victimisation and unfair labour practice. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent, in the Approval Petitions, filed WP No.3269 of 2022, and similar other batch of writ petitions, for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed in the Approval Petitions. This Court vide common order dated, 13.08.2024, partly allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, for his opinion on the enquiry report, in respect of punishment to be imposed on the workmen. This Court further issued appropriate directions to be complied with within the time stipulated therein. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, the workmen filed Writ Appeals, in WA No. 521 of 2025 etc. batch and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26.02.2025, dismissed the Writ Appeals. Thereafter, the Deputy 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchCommissioner of Labour considered the matter afresh, and passed the impugned order, advising the petitioner to impose any other punishment, instead of dismissal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions for the aforesaid relief.5. The learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner submitted that the writ court having allowed the writ petition in part, ought not to have remanded back the matter to the 1st respondent, for its opinion in respect of punishment. The learned Senior counsel, submitted that the Court failed to note that the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, cannot be construed as a settlement binding on the parties. The learned Senior counsel, further submitted that the 1st respondent, under the agreed advise, was only required to provide his opinion on the enquiry report but he could not advise the petitioner to impose a particular punishment. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the 1st respondent, failed to apply his mind while advising the petitioner to impose any other punishment, except punishment of dismissal and further submitted that for the purpose of testing whether the advice given by the respondent was fair and proper, the petitioner was 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchentitled to file the writ petition. The learned Senior counsel therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed.6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, since the impugned order was not an order, but a mere opinion/advice rendered by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st respondent had no choice, but to comply with the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner could not blow hot and cold, since it was only the petitioner which wanted the respondent to give an advice and further it did not choose to file any writ appeal against the writ Court’s order dated 13.08.2024. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the writ petition lacked merit and hence the same deserved to be dismissed.7. I heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batch8.The facts of the case are not disputed their narration is eschewed to avoid repetition. The short point for consideration in these batch of writ petitions is whether the challenge to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 26.05.2025, is sustainable or not.9.To address the controversy, it is deemed appropriate to start with the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, since the back drop of the facts leading to the said advice are undisputed. In the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, the petitioner and the respondent agreed to the following terms and conditions:“,d;W (09“Æ01Æ2020) eilngw;w Ngr;Rthh;j;ijapy; jpUg;ngUk;GJ}h; njhopyhsh; Jiz Mizah; (rkurk;) -1 mth;fs;. eph;thfj; jug;gpy; jpU.ukzh. AGM mth;fs;. njhopw;rq;fk; jug;gpy; jpU.K. ghujp. khepy jiyth; kw;Wk; jpU.D.KUfd;. khtl;l Jiz nrayhsh; MfpNahh; fye;Jnfhz;ldh;. NkYk;> ,d;iwa Ngr;Rthh;j;ijapd; NghJ eph;thfk; kw;Wk; njhopw;rq;fk; ,ilna cld;ghL Vw;gl;L fPo;f;fz;lthW Vw;Gila mwpTiu toq;fg;gl;lJ.1.jw;nghJ Ntiy epWj;jj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; njhopyhsh;fspy; eph;thfj;jhy; jw;fhypf Ntiy epWj;jk; nra;J xOq;F eltbf;if vLf;fg;gl;L tUk; 51 njhopyhsh;fis jtpu kPjKs;s njhopyhsh;fs; Ntiy epWj;jj;ij iftpl;L 13.01.2020 Kjy; gzpf;F jpUk;Gtij 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batch,U jug;gpdUk; Vw;Wf; nfhz;ldh;.2. 51 njhopyhsh;fs; kPjhd xOq;F eltbf;ifapd; tprhuizia xU khjj;jpw;Fs; Kbj;J tprhuiz mwpf;ifia njhopyhsh; Jiz Mizah; (rkurk;) -1> jpUg;ngUk;GJ}h; Kd;G mspf;f VJthf tprhuiz KO xj;Jiog;G mspg;gJ vd eph;thfk; kw;Wk; njhopyhsh; jug;gpy; Vw;Wf; nfhz;ldh;.3.eph;thfj;jhy; xOq;F eltbf;if vLf;fg;gl;L tUk; 51 njhopyhsh;fspd; ,Wjp tprhuiz mwpf;ifia njhopyhsh; Jiz Mizah; (rkurk;)-1> jpUg;ngUk;GJ}h; Kd;;G rkh;g;gpj;J mthpd; mwpTiuf;F cl;gl;L eph;thfk; ,Wjp KbT vLf;Fk; vd ,U jug;gpdUk; Vw;;Wf; nfhz;ldh;.4.NtiyepWj;jk; Kbe;J gzpf;F jpUk;Gk; njhopyhsh;fs; kPJ NtiyepWj;jk; epkpj;jk;> eph;thfk; vt;tpj gopthq;fy; eltbf;iffs; VJk; Nkw;nfhs;s Ntz;lhk; vd njhopw;rq;fk; Nfl;Lf; nfhz;lij eph;thfk; Vw;Wf; nfhz;lJ.5.NtiyepWj;jk; Kbe;J gzpf;F jpUk;Gk; njhopyhsh;fs; epWtdj;jpd; rhd;wspf;fg;gl;l epiyahizf;F cl;gl;L epWtdj;jpd; njhopy; mikjpf;F Fe;jfk; ,y;yhky; gzp GhpNthk; vd njhopyhsh; jug;gpy; cWjp mspf;fg;gl;lJ.6.epWtdj;jpy; njhopy; mikjp epyt njhopyhsh;fs; KO xj;Jiog;G mspf;FkhW njhopw;rq;fj;jpw;Fk;. eph;thfj;jpw;Fk; $Ljy; njhopyhsh; Mizah; mth;fshy; mwpTiu toq;fg;gLfpwJ.”9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batch10.The relevant clause as far as the present controversy is concerned is Clause 3. Both the parties agreed that the final enquiry report with respect to the disciplinary proceedings of the 51 workmean would be submitted to the 1st respondent and based on the advice/opinion of the 1st respondent, the petitioner/ Management would act on the agreed advice of the 1st respondent. The petitioner claims to have submitted the enquiry officer’s report to the 1st respondent and since the 1st respondent did not respond, the petitioner passed the dismissal order and submitted Approval Petitions to the 1st respondent for approval of the dismissal order. The 1st respondent dismissed the Approval Petitions on the ground that the petitioner failed to obtain his advice as per the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, and therefore, the dismissal order amounted to victimisation and unfair labour practice. The petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the Approval Petition, filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3269 of 2022 etc. batch and this Court by order dated 13.08.2024, partly allowed the writ petitions. While disposing the writ petitions, this Court observing that the present case was not a case where reinstatement would automatically follow the dismissal of rejection of Approval Petitions, remitted to the stage of Deputy 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchCommissioner of Labour, for his advise/opinion on the enquiry report, so that, the petitioner/Management could take appropriate decision regarding punishment. The operative portion of the order at para 43 reads as follows:"43. In view of the discussions made above, this Writ Petition is allowed in part, setting aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 made in A.P.No.425 of 2020 passed by the first respondent/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-I) Sriperumbudur and matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for giving opinion on the basis of enquiry report in respect of punishment to be imposed on the workmen. Consequently, this Court also quashes the orders passed by the petitioner Management of dismissing the 51 workmen dated 02.09.2020. The petitioner Management is directed to submit a copy of enquiry report dated 24.02.2020 to the first respondent the Deputy Commissioner of Labour within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on submission of such enquiry report, the first respondent the Deputy Commissioner is directed to advice as per "acceptable advice" dated 09.01.2020 within four weeks thereafter and the petitioner Management is further directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of disciplinary proceedings against 51 workmen within three weeks from the date of receipt of advice from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. No costs. 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchConsequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."11. The petitioner / Management has not preferred any appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. Though it was orally submitted by the learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner that a writ appeal had been filed, no such averments or particulars are placed on record. Hence, it must be held that the said order stands unchallenged by the petitioner. The fact is that it was the workmen who filed the writ appeal, on the ground that the writ Court having held that the rejection of approval was proper, ought not to have given liberty to the petitioner/Management to approach the 1st respondent for further action. The Division Bench negatived the said contention and passed the following order:"6. However, Mr.S.Kumarawamy, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the workmen should be allowed to agitate all their contentions before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour when the matter is taken up again, pursuant to the directions of this Court. We make it clear that the workmen will be heard by the Commissioner before he offers the advice as directed by the Writ Court and the workmen will be entitled to put forth all their contentions before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour will decide the 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchmatter afresh without being influenced by any of the observations of the order impugned in this writ appeal or in this order. He will decide the entire matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."12.Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and in accordance with the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, the 1st respondent tendered his opinion that the petitioner / Management could impose any punishment permissible under the Standing Orders except dismissal. The 1st respondent expressly stated that it was only his opinion/advice. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said advice.13.From the facts placed, it is evident that the 1st respondent had only complied with the order of this Court both in the writ petition and in the writ appeal. As long as the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, stands and the petitioner has not questioned the orders of this Court directing adherence to such advice, the challenge to the impugned order cannot be sustained.13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batch14.Though it was argued by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the writ appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, there is no assertion in the pleadings nor are particulars available. Therefore, the petitioner, cannot be heard to contend that the order of the learned Single Judge stands displaced.15.The writ Court on interpreting the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, held that the rejection of the Approval Petition was proper and, considering the peculiar facts, remitted the matter to the 1st respondent for his opinion based on the enquiry report, instead of directing reinstatement. The matter was accordingly, partly allowed.16.The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition was partly allowed only after holding that the enquiry was proper, is misconceived. The writ Court unequivocally held that the rejection of the Approval Petition was proper and remanded the matter only for the limited purpose of facilitating the imposition of appropriate punishment. The Division Bench also affirmed this position and clarified 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchthat the Management was required to act only as per the advice of the 1st respondent. This Court therefore finds that the parties are bound by the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, and that they are estopped from resiling therefrom.17.The contention of the learned Senior counsel that, notwithstanding his acceptance of the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, he could still challenge the advice insofar as it relates to the modification of the punishment is wholly untenable. The agreed advice is a consensual arrangement arrived at between the parties and has, in fact, been recognized and preserved by the order of the Writ Court as well as the Division Bench. The petitioner had admittedly not challenged those orders and has also taken benefit under the agreed advice. The petitioner, having acted upon certain benefits flowing from the agreed advice dated 09.01.2020, including calling off the illegal strike and resumption of services by the workmen, cannot now selectively challenge those terms which do not suit it. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate by assailing its consequential application at this stage. Further, the agreed advise bears the approval of this Court. The 15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchpetitioner, is therefore, estopped from raising such a contention and the present challenge is liable to be rejected. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Ganesan G. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, reported in MANU/TN/9097/2001. This Court, finds that the judgment is inapplicable to the facts of this case.18.This Court finds no merit in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue remedy, in a manner known to law. In view of the above discussions, writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 14.11.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nodsn / APToThe Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Conciliation-I, Sriperumbudur,Kancheepuram District- 602 117.16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.32541 of 2025 etc. batchN.MALA,J.Dsn / APW.P.Nos. 32541, 32552, 32363, 32314, 41371, 41367, 41366, 41364, 41211, 40983, 40970, 40964, 40961, 40468, 40192, 40181, 40130, 40114, 40050, 40027, 39948, 39903, 38191, 38102, 38098, 38096, 38094, 37934, 37932, 37929, 37926, 37925, 37924, 37922, 34162, 34159, 34157, 32609, 40981, 40975, 41362 of 202514.11.202517/17