IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.03.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
W.P.No.4567 of 2006
and M.P.No.16719 of 2006
M.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.Collector of Aurangabad,
Aurangabad,
Maharastra State (W.E.)
3.The Management of Mayo India Ltd.,
Nath house, North Aurangabad,
Maharastra 431 005. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to recover Rs.1,13,794 along with interest and cost from the 3rd respondent as per G.O.(D).No.446, Labour and Employment (C) Department dated 29.04.2004 and disburse to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam
Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to recover Rs.1,13,794/- along with interest and cost from the 3rd respondent as per G.O.(D).No.446, Labour and Employment (C) Department dated 29.04.2004 and disburse to the petitioner.
2.The petitioner claims that he was employed with the third respondent and certain amount is due to him and therefore, the petitioner filed C.P.No.346/2002 under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Salem. The third respondent was called absent and set exparte. The labour Court allowed the petition, directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,794/- to the petitioner with 9% interest. To implement the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application to the Government, which resulted in passing of the G.O.(D).No.446, Labour and Employment (C) Department dated 29.04.2004. The Government directed the Collector of Aurangabad District, Mahastrastra to take steps for recovery of the said sum together with the interest and cost from the third respondent and disburse the same to the petitioner. The petitioner made an application to the second respondent/Collector of Aurangabad and also caused a lawyer notice on 06.09.2004. Since no action has been taken by the second respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. Section 33 (C) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides as follows:
“33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.
(1)Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of [Chapter VA or Chapter VB,) the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:”
3.In this case, the second respondent, inspite of a specific request by the petitioner as well as legal notice, failed to implement the Government Order in terms of Sec 33 (C) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, this court is constrained to issue mandamus as prayed for as against respondent No.2, who is the competent authority to implement the Government Order for recovery of the amount in terms of the G.O.(D).No.446, Labour and Employment (C) Department dated 29.04.2004 issued consequent to the order of the Labour Court.
4.Though the second respondent is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner’s right to receive the money indicated in the Government Order. This plea technically taken by the Government Advocate is rejected as the issue in resolved by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another [(2006) 6 SCC 207]. paragraphs 6,7 and 8 which is relevant reads as follows:
“6. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It reads as follows:
“226. (2)The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.”
7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.
8. Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order of writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. (see ONGC V. Utpal Kumar Basu)”
In this case the cause of action arose when the petitioner was removed from service at Tamil Nadu for which petitioner approached the Labour Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and after the order of the Labour Court, the Tamil Nadu Government Order has been issued. The authority who issued the impugned proceedings is situate with in the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence the petitioner has rightly approached this Court to redress his grievance and enforce his claim and entitlement as per law.
5.Considering of the above, a mandamus is issued as prayed for as against the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to implement the first respondent Government Order in G.O.(D).No.446, Labour and Employment (C) Department dated 29.04.2004 for recovery of the amount specified within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.03.2010
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.Collector of Aurangabad,
Aurangabad,
Maharastra State (W.E.)
3.The Management of Mayo India Ltd.,
Nath house, North Aurangabad,
Maharastra 431 005.
R.SUDHAKAR, J.
vsm
W.P.No.4567 of 2006
19.03.2010