IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.07.2010
CORAM :
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
W.P.No.4142 of 2005
The Management of
M/s. Unico Leather Product (P) Ltd.,
1, Sri Ramapuram Road,
Keelachur Village,
Pallikonda 635 809. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Vellore.
2. R.Vijayalakshmi
3. Minor K.Siva
4. Minor K.Yuvaraj
(Minors rep by their Guardian
P.M.Rajagopal) ... Respondents
(R3 and R4 impleaded as per order,
dated 01.02.2008 made in
W.P.M.P.No.2860 of 2007 in
W.P.No.4142 of 2005 by NPVJ )
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Award No.1 in I.D.No.96 of 2000 dated 13.09.2004 and quash the same and also direct the first respondent, to accept the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner / management with its report, dated 03.12.1998.
For petitioner : Mr.D.Vijayakumar
For respondents : Ms.B.S.Ajeetha
for Mr.J.Saravanavel
O R D E R
Challenging the Award, dated 13.09.2004 passed in I.D.No.96 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore, this writ petition has been preferred by the Management.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent, employee, Mrs.R.Vijayalakshmi was reported dead, hence, the minor respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded as legal representatives of the second respondent.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought an order to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, the first respondent herein and also to direct the first respondent to accept the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner / management and the findings of the enquiry report, dated 03.12.1998. Admittedly, there was no final order passed by the Labour Court.
4. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision, ITC Ltd., vs. Industrial Tribunal, reported in 2008 (4) CTC 465, submitted that the writ petition be disposed of, subject to the right of the petitioner to raise the same, while final award being passed by the first respondent, for which, the learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the second respondent, namely respondents 3 and 4 has no objection.
5. In the aforesaid decision, the first Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :
“8. Apart from the Hon’ble Court right from the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd., vs. P.P.Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900 and D.P.Maheswari vs. Delhi Administration, 1983 (2) LLJ 425 SC, frowned upon interference by the Courts on a preliminary point when the point on which the interference is sought for can be challenged after the final award is passed. Such interference was never encouraged by the Supreme Court in the interest of expediting quick disposal of cases by the Industrial Tribunal.”
6. In the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, I find it just and reasonable to pass orders in the writ petitions, accordingly, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to raise the defence before the first respondent, Labour Court at the time of passing the final order.
S.TAMILVANAN, J.
tsvn
7. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Since the matter is pending for a long time, the first respondent is directed to dispose the I.D.No.96 of 2000, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
29-07-2010 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No tsvn To The Presiding Officer Vellore. W.P.No.4142 of 2005