BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.10138 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruchirappalli Unit, Tiruchirapalli 620 014. Rep.by its General Management (HR) ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Mannarpuram, Tiruchirappalli 620 020. 2.BHEL Complex Cooperative Labour Contract Society Limited, 'R' Sector Township Kailasapuram, Trichy 620 014. Rep.by its Special Officer. ... Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.E/1840/2009 dated 17.06.2009 and the consequential proceedings No.E/1840/2009 dated 15.07.2009 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.Gopalan ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,G.A. For R1 :ORDER
Heard Mr.V.Karthik, learned counsel representing Ms.T.S.Gopalan and Co.,
assisted by M/s.P.Malini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.C.Herold
Singh, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the first respondent and
Mr.Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2.The Writ petition is filed by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Tiruchirapalli Unit (BHEL for short) challenging the notice dated 17.06.2009 and
the consequential proceedings dated 15.07.2009 issued by the first respondent
Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Writ petition was admitted on 09.10.2009. Pending the Writ
petition, this Court granted an interim order on a prima facie view that the
authority constituted under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, has no power to deal
with the grant of permanent status to the contract workmen as against the
principal employee.
4.The notice, which is impugned in this Writ petition was issued by the
first respondent dated 17.06.2009. The said notice came to be issued at the
instance of one G.Rajendiran, who is the convenor of the Joint Action Committee
of all trade unions addressed to the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli and
received by the 1st respondent. In that letter addressed to the District
Collector, which was forwarded to the 1st respondent, the said G.Rajendiran
claimed that under the 2nd respondent Labour Contract Society, there are 1342
workers, working on contract basis doing the work of permanent workers and
discharging all the duties attached to the permanent post for over 28 years.
Therefore, they should be made permanent by BHEL. Since the letter was
forwarded by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, the 1st respondent called
for remarks from the petitioner BHEL. It is stated that by the subsequent
notice dated 15.07.2009, he also requested the petitioner BHEL to appear before
him with all relevant records as well as notice received. The BHEL sent a reply
dated 25.07.2009. A copy the said letter enclosed in page 32 to 34 of the typed
set filed along with the Writ petition.
5.When a preliminary objection was raised by them a reminder notice was
sent fixing fresh dates of enquiry on 07.09.2009 and 01.10.2009. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner BHEL sent a reply reputing the jurisdiction of the
authority as well as on the merits of the claim made by the said G.Rajendiran.
It is suffice to state that having given a reply, they will have to wait for the
decision to be taken by the 1st respondent. If the 1st respondent purports to
act in terms of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) then it is a
statutory power exercised by such authority and the said authority acting in
terms of the provisions of the said Act, is bound to follow all statutory
proceedings, including giving opportunity to the petitioner BHEL for determining
all question including lack of jurisdiction on his part. Certainly, a Writ in
the nature of Certiorari will not lie against a mere notice of enquiry issued by
the statutory authority, performing a statutory duty under a valid state
enactment.
6.There is no dispute that the 1st respondent is an Inspector constituted
under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 81 in terms of Section 4 of the said Act. Under
Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Rules 1981, an employee aggrieved about his name not found in
the acquittance register, can make a complaint to the authority and the
authority is bound to entertain such a complaint. Therefore, when a notice was
received by the petitioner BHEL from the authority and the petitioner BHEL had
raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction, it is needless to
state that authority will not consider those objections before taking a decision
in terms of the provisions of the Act.
7.In the present case, even though the petitioner BHEL makes a complaint,
but, the entire impugned order came to be issued on the basis of the complaint
made by the said G.Rajendiran, the President of ATP Union and also the convenor
of the Joint Action Committee, the petitioner has not chosen to make him a party
either in his individual capacity or in a collective capacity. Merely, making
the labour contract Society as the 2nd respondent, this Writ petition cannot be
adjudicated. Therefore, for both on the ground of maintainability as well due
to the non joinder of necessary parties, the Writ petition is liable to be
rejected. As and when the authority passes any order and if the petitioner has
still any grievance, there is time enough for them to challenge it in the manner
known to law. But on a mere notice of enquiry, this Court cannot issue a Writ
of Certiorari by taking into account, the pleadings made by the petitioner
before the said authority. It is not as if the 1st respondent lacks in
jurisdiction in dealing with an application made in terms of the Act. As set
out already the authority has to act within the four corners of law and come to
conclusion in terms of the materials placed before him. But at no instance his
proceedings can be forestalled at the threshold without a valid adjudication on
the complaint made by the workers.
8.In the light of the above, the Writ petition lacks on merits,
accordingly, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is
closed.
nbj
To
1.The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories,
Mannarpuram,
Tiruchirappalli 620 020.
2.The Special Officer.
BHEL Complex Cooperative Labour Contract
Society Limited,
‘R’ Sector Township
Kailasapuram,
Trichy 620 014.