BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/09/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3981 of 2007 R.Karmegam .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Labour Chennai. 2.A.Boopathy 3.K.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.C4/64962/06 dated 05.04.2007 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner complaint dated 16.06.2003 on merits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.J.Ashok ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh for R1 Government Advocate Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for R2 for Mr.M.Ajmal Khan :ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge
the order of the first respondent, the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai dated
05.04.2007.
2. The petitioner who was employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation earlier filed a complaint before the Secretary to Government dated
16.06.2003. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition being numbered W.P.(MD).No.7540
of 2006 seeking to set aside the order of the first respondent, the Commissioner
of Labour, Chennai dated 09.11.2005, wherein the petitioner was informed by the
first respondent that there was no prima facie case made out for taking action
against respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition. It was held to be a
private dispute between the petitioner and certain other person. This Court by
an order dated 18.09.2006 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of
Labour and directed him to hold a further enquiry.
3. Based on the direction of this Court an enquiry was directed to be
conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. The said officer
sent a report dated 19.08.2005. It was thereafter, the first respondent passed a
detailed order dated 05.04.2007 rejecting the request made by the petitioner.
The first respondent held that the petitioner had not made out a case of unfair
labour practices so as to punish the respondents 3 and 4 under Sections 25(T)
and 25(U) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The first allegation was that when he gave a complaint against the
third respondent for obtaining loan of Rs.1,000/-, a disciplinary action was
taken and the petitioner had participated in the disciplinary proceedings and
his evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the enquiry officer found that the
charges were not proved. Certainly, this would not amount to be an act of unfair
labour practices. The second allegation was that the petitioner will do only the
work of tinkering and he was asked to do additional works which were not
connected with his duty. Only because the petitioner refused to do the
additional duty, disciplinary action was taken and hence that will come under an
act of unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Labour was not valid.
5. This Court is unable to accept the same. It is an admitted fact that
Section 2(ra) of the Act defines unfair labour practices and V-schedule set
outs a prohibited list of unfair labour practices, which cannot be committed
either by employers or by workmen.
6. Violation of V-schedule has been prohibited under Section 25(T) of the
Act. If there was any violation of Section 25(T), Section 25(U) prescribes
penalty. The Act had not created any machinery to go into complaints of
violation of such unfair labour practices. The Act only contemplates prosecution
of an employer. For prosecuting any person under the Act, Section 34 of the Act
requires prior consent of the State Government. Therefore, the petitioner moving
an application before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Labour, who has
no authority either to sanction the prosecution nor make any enquiry under the
Act and the same was clearly not contemplated under law. Even otherwise the
findings were invited by the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this
Court. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Commissioner was not
valid.
7. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and the
same is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
jikr
To
1.The Commissioner of Labour
Chennai.