{"id":215738,"date":"2003-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003"},"modified":"2018-09-27T14:29:34","modified_gmt":"2018-09-27T08:59:34","slug":"p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 21\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH\n\nW.P.No.1276 of 2003\nand\nW.P.M.P.No.1586 of 2003\n\nP. Natarajan,\nS\/o P. Perumal,\nS.No.47, Sunitha Nagar,\nDunkrik Post,\nWadagaoncheri,\nPune  411 014.                 ...             Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The commissioner of Labour,\n   DMS Campus, Teynampet,\n   Chennai  600 006.\n\n2. The Deputy Commissioner of\n   Labour, 5, Shivaji Nagar,\n   Pune  411 005.\n\n3. T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd.\n   - Rep. by its Vice President\n   (I.R.) Thiru S. Rajagopaln,\n   Harita, Hosur,\n   Dharmapuri District  635 109.\n\n4. Shri M.R. Mande,\n   Labour Law Consultant\/\n   Enquiry Officer,\n   Prem Mohan Multipurpose\n   Security & Allied Services\n   (P.) Ltd., C-6, Shangrilla\n   Garden, II Floor,\n   31, Bund Garden Road,\n   Pune  411 001.                      ...             Respondents\n\nFor Petitioner ::      Mr.M.K. Hidayathullah\n\nFor Respondents 1 & 2 ::   Mr.S.V. Durai Solaimalai,\n                        Government Advocate.\n\nFor Respondent 3:       ...     Mr. Karthick for\n                             M\/s T. Gopalan & Co.\n\n                This  writ  petition  is  filed  under  Article  226  of   the\nConstitution of India for a writ of mandamus as stated therein.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                The  prayer  is  for  a  mandamus to direct the respondents to
\nconsider and pass orders on the petitioner’s latest representation dated 10-12\n<\/p>\n
-2002 and conduct de novo enquiry in regard to  the  allegations  against  the
\npetitioner  at  Hosur in Tamil Nadu or in any other place at Tamil Nadu in the
\npetitioner’s mother tongue Tamil.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The facts as set out in the affidavit in  support  of  the
\nwrit petition are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                The petitioner  had completed X Standard.  He was appointed as
\nOperator L-1 in the third respondent company on 22-9-1995 at Hosur.    He  had
\nbeen serving  in  his capacity as Operator with unblemished record.  There was
\nSection 18(1) Settlement under I.D.  Act between the Management and the  Trade
\nUnion at Hosur  Factory.    The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries.  He is
\ncontinuously paying the subscription to the Trade Union INTUC,  TVS  Employees
\nUnion, Hosur, every quarter in a year since 22-9-1995.  He is well-versed only
\nin Tamil.  Though he can speak Hindi, he does not know to read and write.  His
\nknowledge in  English  is  also  not fluent.  He is restricted only to sign in
\nEnglish.  The Union placed charges of demand for the enhancement of salary  at
\nHosur.  The  petitioner’s  salary  is  based  upon  Madras  Price  Index.   By
\ncommunication dated 5-11-2001 the management has reiterated that his  original
\nterms and   conditions   of  appointment  stand  unaltered.    The  petitioner
\ncontributed his signature in the Union, which is not  to  the  liking  of  the
\nManagement.   The Management purported to transfer him from Hosur, Tamil Nadu,
\nto Pune, vide Ref.PER\/392, dated 4-4-1998.  He joined the Pune  Ware-House  on
\n18-4-1998.   Though  his original appointment was as Operator L.1, he was made
\nto work without any designation, assigned odd jobs  like  Telephone  Attender,
\nDespatch  Clerk,  attending  to  drawing  of  moneys from Bank and deposits of
\ncheques, filing of correspondence  in  the  office  and  other  menial  works.
\nIgnoring  the petitioner’s experience as Operator L-1, his transfer to Pune to
\nattend odd jobs is more by way of punishment.  It was not a routine  transfer.
\nHowever, he  continued  in  the  transferred  place  at  Pune.  Ever since his
\ntransfer to Pune, the petitioner has been making repeated written requests for
\nretransfer to Hosur.  There has been no response to his requests.  However, on
\n19.9.2002 the third respondent issued  show  cause  notice  levelling  certain
\ncharges  inter  alia  stating  that  he  used an unparliamentary word in Hindi
\nagainst one contract labour by name Sachin at Pune.   Show  cause  notice  had
\nbeen issued  from  Hosur,  Tamil  Nadu,  to the petitioner’s Pune address.  He
\nsubmitted his explanation on 21-8-2002.  The third  respondent  appointed  the
\nfourth  respondent  as  Enquiry Officer to conduct a domestic enquiry into the
\ncharges levelled against the petitioner.    The  petitioner  has  been  making
\nrepeated  requests to conduct the enquiry in Tamil, in which he is well-versed
\nsince he is not able to follow the proceedings in English having very  limited
\nknowledge.   Further,  some  of  the  communications  were sent by the Enquiry
\nOfficer in Marati, which the petitioner does not know.  His request has not at
\nall been considered.  He was subjected to great hardship and trouble.  He  has
\nto  spend  money to have the assistance of English knowing persons to read the
\ncommunications and even to send reply.  Since he is not  fully  conversant  in
\nEnglish,  he  is not in a position to ascertain himself whether what he wanted
\nto convey had been properly  translated  into  English.    The  petitioner  is
\nundergoing  mental  agony,  anguish and irreparable injury by such proceedings
\nconducted in English and communication sent in  Marati.    The  petitioner  is
\ndenied a  fair  enquiry.  Principles of natural justice are not applied in the
\nproceedings.  During the proceedings, except  the  petitioner,  everybody  was
\nconversing only in Marati and the petitioner has to watch the proceedings like
\na deaf  and  dumb  person.    Due  to the communication gap, he is not able to
\neffectively represent himself.  He is also denied to engage an Advocate in the
\ndomestic enquiry.  The  petitioner,  therefore,  sent  a  communication  dated
\n10-12-2002  highlighting  the  denial  of principles of natural justice to him
\nrequiring  the  authorities  to  issue  direction  to  stop  further   enquiry
\nproceedings  by  the  fourth  respondent  and further seeking direction to the
\nmanagement to conduct the enquiry de novo in Tamil Nadu and also  furnish  the
\ndocuments to him to make his representation effectively.  There is no positive
\nresponse.  In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Notice  was  ordered  on  14-1-2003.    Respondents 1 to 3
\nentered appearance through Counsel and the third respondent filed  a  counter,
\nwhich is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
                On  28-7-1995  the  petitioner submitted a printed application
\nfor employment in which he declared that he could speak, read and write Tamil,
\nEnglish and Hindi.  The petitioner has been working in  the  third  respondent
\noffice in  Pune  from 20-4-1998.  In July-August, 2002 there were reports from
\nthe Area Office, Pune, that on  3-7-2002  the  petitioner  had  unauthorisedly
\ntaken an important and confidential office document from the representative of
\nthe  Courier,  before it was delivered to the addressee and when the addressee
\ncomplained about the nonreceipt of the said document, the area office came  to
\nknow  that  the  petitioner  had  unauthorisedly  collected the cover from the
\nCourier, opened the same, took out the confidential document and  kept  it  in
\nhis drawer.    It  was  further  reported that on 8-7-2002 at about 10.30 a.m.
\nwhen the errand  boy  of  a  contractor  was  packing  some  of  the  personal
\nbelongings of  Shri  B.V.    Sridhar,  General  Manager  (Service), as per the
\ndirection of the  Area  Manager,  the  petitioner  needlessly  interfered  and
\nthreatened  the errand boy that how he could send that without his permission.
\nThe petitioner also hit him on his face.\n<\/p>\n
                On 19-8-2002 a show cause notice was issued  to  him  pointing
\nout  the misconduct on the part of the petitioner and calling upon him to show
\ncause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.  The petitioner
\ngave a reply on 21-8-2002.  The petitioner had not addressed to  the  acts  of
\nmisconduct levelled  against  him.    Therefore, he was asked to appear for an
\nenquiry.  The domestic enquiry was held  by  an  independent  outsider.    The
\npetitioner did not participate in the enquiry.  He used to participate on some
\ndays,  avoid  enquiry  on  some other days and he used to raise trivial issues
\nsolely with a view to frustrate the enquiry.  At that stage,  he  addressed  a
\nletter  dated 25-1 1-2002 to the second respondent purporting to be a petition
\nunder Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes  Act,  challenging  his  transfer
\nfrom Hosur to Pune made in April, 1998 and also making imaginary grievances in
\nthe  matter of conduct of the enquiry into the charges levelled against him on
\n19-8-2002.  On 10.12.2002 he made a further  representation  making  imaginary
\ngrievances against the enquiry to the second respondent at Pune with a copy to
\nthe first and the third respondents.  The representation has been addressed to
\nthe  second respondent, who is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.
\nThe writ petition is therefore not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
                As regards the prayer for de novo enquiry in some other  place
\nin  Tamil  Nadu,  it  is  stated that the petitioner is working in Pune and he
\ncould not be allowed to say that the enquiry should be conducted away from his
\nworking place.  In any event,  only  the  third  respondent  had  ordered  the
\nenquiry to  be  held at Pune.  The forth respondent is a private person and is
\nnot amenable to the writ jurisdiction.   Since  no  relief  has  been  claimed
\nagainst  the  first and the fourth respondents, the writ petition against them
\nis not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
                The petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section  2-A
\nof the  Industrial Disputes Act.  If the disciplinary action initiated against
\nthe petitioner results in imposition of any punishment, it is always  open  to
\nhim  to  move the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act and seek remedy.
\nWhen such remedy  is  sought  before  the  adjudicating  authority  under  the
\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act,  even  if  for  any  reason,  the  complaint of the
\npetitioner against the enquiry is countenanced, the third respondent will have
\nthe opportunity of justifying its action by leading evidence.   Therefore,  no
\ncase is  made  out  to  injunct  the  enquiry  at  this  stage.  It is for the
\npetitioner to decide whether or not he should participate in the enquiry.   It
\nis  open  to  the  petitioner  to raise whatever objections he has against the
\nenquiry and without prejudice to those objections, he could participate in the
\nenquiry and avail of the opportunities given to him to defend his case.  It is
\nnot open to him to seek direction  to  injunct  the  enquiry  at  this  stage,
\nparticularly when the enquiry is in progress and witnesses are being examined.\n<\/p>\n
                In  the  first  sitting  of  the enqiry held on 23.9.2002, the
\npetitioner accepted that  he  had  studied  up  to  S.S.L.C.,  that  he  could
\nunderstand English, that the proceedings could be recorded in English and that
\nhe had  no  objection  to the fourth respondent conducting the enquiry.  It is
\nnot open to the petitioner to challenge his transfer from Hosur to  Pune  made
\nin April,  1998.  If, as alleged by the petitioner, any communication had been
\nsent by the Enquiry Officer in Marati, this respondent  would  take  steps  to
\nfurnish the  petitioner  with  English translation.  Hindi is generally spoken
\nand understood in Maharashtra including Pune.  The petitioner knows Hindi  and
\nit will  not  be  difficult  for  him to understand Hindi.  He claims to be an
\nEx-serviceman and therefore, he would be conversant with Hindi, which fact  he
\naccepted at  the  time  of  joining  the  employment.    The  enquiry is being
\nconducted only in English, with which the petitioner is quite familiar.   When
\nnon-English  speaking  witness  is examined, the deposition is translated into
\nEnglish and recorded in English and hence no prejudice would be caused to  the
\npetitioner.   It  is  not  admitted that the petitioner is not conversant with
\nEnglish.  He has been corresponding with the third respondent in English.   He
\ndoes  not  have a right to demand or dictate about the place where the enquiry
\nshould be held in respect of the charges  levelled  against  him  and  in  any
\nevent, he  is working in Pune and enquiry can be held only in Pune.  He cannot
\ndemand shifting the place of enquiry from Pune to any  other  place  in  Tamil
\nNadu.   Not  only  his  demand  is unreasonable, but also has no basis in law.
\nNeither the first respondent nor the second respondent has any power under any
\nEnactment to give any direction about the conduct of the enquiry.  The  points
\nraised in the petitioner’s representation dated 10-1 2-2002 do not fall within
\nthe  powers  of  jurisdiction  of the first or the second respondent under any
\nlaw.  The petition is gross abuse of process  of  law  and  is  liable  to  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   By  consent  the  main  writ  petition  was  taken up and
\narguments were heard.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  The appointment order  dated  22-9-1995  clearly  provides
\nthat  during  the  period of training, the appointee should accept transfer to
\nany place in the organisation or to any other division or  associates  of  the
\ncompany existing or to be formed in future or to any of the group of companies
\nin any  place, if required.  If the trainee completed one year training to the
\nsatisfaction of the management, he would be considered for appointment on  the
\nregular  rolls  of  the  company  on probation in a suitable post based on the
\nprogress the trainee had shown during  the  training  period.    On  4-4-1998,
\neffective 6.4.1998, the petitioner was transferred to the Marketing Department
\non  the  same  designation  and salary in terms of the appointment order dated
\n22-9-1995 and also in terms of Clause 4 of the Certified  Standing  Orders  of
\nthe Company applicable  to  the  petitioner.    He was posted to Pune.  He was
\nrelieved from his duties in the Factory Production Department, effective close
\nto his shift 4-4-1998 to enable him to make arrangements for his journey.   By
\norder  dated  5.12.1998,  effective 22-9-1998, the petitioner was confirmed as
\nOperator L.1 in Group-A.  His basic salary was also revised.  It  was  further
\nrevised on  22-9-200  as Rs.1479\/- per month.  Periodical revisions were being
\nmade.  However, on 19-8-2 002 the petitioner was  issued  with  a  show  cause
\nnotice.   He  submitted his explanation, which was perused and found to be not
\nsatisfactory.  The fourth respondent was asked to conduct a  domestic  enquiry
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   The  notice  of  enquiry provides, among other things, as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“The management will be represented by Shri Suresh B.  Patil,  Senior  Manager
\n(Personnel),  M\/s  Harita  Grammer  Limited, Pune, sister concern of TVS Motor
\nCompany Limited.\n<\/p>\n
        The enquiry procedure will be explained to you by the Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
        The enquiry will be conducted based  on  the  “Principles  of  Natural
\nJustice” and based on the provisions of the Model Standing Orders contained in
\nthe Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 195 9.\n<\/p>\n
        If  you  are  interested, you can bring a co-employee to assist you in
\nthe enquiry.  However, please note that  no  outsider  will  be  permitted  to
\nassist you in the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        Please  note  that  if  you do not appear for the enquiry on the above
\ndate and time or refuse to participate, the enquiry will be conducted ex parte
\nand disposed of on merits.”\n<\/p>\n
                7.  On 23-9-2002, the petitioner made an objection in  writing
\nthat,
\n“recording  of proceedings are being gone with manual hand written in English.
\nBut, I have studied only up to X  Standard  and  I  am  unable  to  understand
\nEnglish properly.  So I request you to take enquiry proceedings in Tamil, i.e.
\nmy mother tongue and I have strong verbal objection to handwritten script made
\navailable to  me  is  in poor state.  The average eye sight person cannot read
\nthe said script, which affect the defence of me.\n<\/p>\n
        The procedure of conducting domestic enquiry was  not  brought  to  my
\nnotice by the Presiding Officer conducting the domestic enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        …….\n<\/p>\n
        I was not furnished with the copy of the charge sheet till date.
\n        …….\n<\/p>\n
        Notice,  order communication or information handed over to me have not
\nbeen read out and explained to me.\n<\/p>\n
        …….\n<\/p>\n
        The order for issue of some important documents to me for preparing my
\ndefence should be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
        I may kindly be allowed to represent my case through Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
        Procedure of conducting domestic enquiry should be explained to me.”\n<\/p>\n
                8.  This is followed by another letter dated 26.11.2002.   The
\npetitioner  objected  to the fourth respondent conducting the enquiry, that he
\nhas no faith in him and that the enquiry is not in accordance with  principles
\nof natural justice.  He wanted change of Enquiry officer.  This is followed by
\nanother   letter   dated  27.11.2002  stating  that  the  Enquiry  Officer  is
\nco-operative with the   Management and  that  he  allowed  one  Suresh  Patil,
\nManager of  Harita Grammer Company unofficially.  He shouted at the petitioner
\nin loud voice and threatened him.  The petitioner was harassed at the time  of
\nenquiry.  One  Ranganath  Pund  was  allowed as the defence counsel.  The said
\nRanganath Pund is the President of Poona Zilla Mazoor Sabha and he is not  the
\npetitioner’ s  union  leader.    He knows only Marati and he could not explain
\nanything to the petitioner.  Then  only  the  petitioner  dispensed  with  his
\nservices and asked  for  assistance of another counsel.  This was refused.  So
\nhe wanted the enquiry to be conducted in Tamil by following the principles  of
\nnatural justice, the Enquiry Officer to be changed and necessary documents and
\nCertified Standing O rders have to be furnished to him.         9.
\nThereafter,  he  sent  a  letter  on  10-12-2002 to the Deputy Commissioner of
\nLabour, Mumbai, that if the enquiry proceedings were to be conducted in  Pune,
\nit  would  not  be fair and “the petitioner would risk his life if the enquiry
\nwas conducted out side the Ware House Complex; an outsider has been  appointed
\nas  Enquiry  Officer,  which  is  violative  of the principles of the Standing
\nOrders; the cause of action for conducting enquiry  as  per  the  management’s
\ndocuments and files will be within the State of Tamil Nadu and not at Pune; he
\nprayed  for stoppage of all enquiry by the fourth respondent and conduct of de
\nnovo enquiry by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer; the enquiry is to be  held
\nwithin the  State  of  Tamil Nadu.  Not having been successful in stalling the
\nproceedings, the petitioner has come to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The respective contentions have already been set out.  On
\nbehalf of the third respondent, two documents have been produced.   The  first
\none  is  the  application  dated 28-7-1995 submitted by the petitioner for his
\nemployment.  In Column 11 of  the  application,  under  languages  known,  the
\npetitioner  has said that he knows to speak, read and write Tamil, English and
\nHindi.  In Column 14 it is shown that he joined on 2nd November, 1983  in  the
\nLight  Air  Defence  of  the  Indian  Air  Force  as Wireless Operator and was
\ndischarged in January, 1992 on medical ground.   The  other  document  is  the
\nminutes of  the  enquiry  conducted  on 23-9-2002.  The petitioner has given a
\nstatement as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“My name is P.  Natarajan.  I am working as  an  Operator  L-1  at  TVS  Motor
\nCompany’s  Warehouse and Marketing Office at Wagholi since last about four and
\nhalf years.  ….  I have studied up to S.S.L.C.  I, understand English.   The
\nproceedings of  the  enquiry  may  please  be  recorded in English.  I have no
\nobjections for the authority of the signatory to Exs.P-1 to P-4 as well as for
\nMr.M.R.  Mande conducting this enquiry as the  Enquiry  Officer.y  However,  I
\nhave objections  for  Mr.S.B.   Patil appearing in this enquiry as the Company
\nRepresentative, because he is an employee of Harita Grammer Ltd.  and not from
\nTVS Motor Company of which I am an employee.  …..  I am  also  producing  in
\nthe  enquiry,  the  copy  of my letter dated 14-9-2002 (four pages in English)
\nsent to the Vice President (Operations) Mr.S.  Rajagopalan at Hosur, regarding
\nthe charges against me mentioned in Ex.P-4.  ….  I say that I have not  been
\ncharge sheeted.  …..   Advocate P.M.  Behera may please be allowed to defend
\nmy case in this enquiry.” [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
The petitioner has also signed the minutes.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Thus, the petitioner himself had in the  application  for
\nemployment  indicated that he knew to read, write and speak English, Hindi and
\nTamil and on 23-9-2002 had specifically  stated  that  the  enquiry  could  be
\nconducted  in  English  and  that he had no objection to the fourth respondent
\nbeing the Enquiry Officer.  As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel  for
\nthe third respondent, it is not open to the petitioner to change track and ask
\nfor enquiry  being  conducted  in his mother tongue Tamil.  The charge against
\nhim is that he had unauthorisedly taken an important and  confidential  office
\ndocument from the representative of the Courier before it was delivered to the
\naddressee  and when the addressee complained about the non-receipt of the said
\ndocument, the area office came to know that the petitioner had  unauthorisedly
\ncollected  the  cover  from  the  Courier,  opened  the  same,  took  out  the
\nconfidential document and kept it in his drawer and again, when the errand boy
\nof a contractor was packing some of  the  personal  belongings  of  Shri  B.V.
\nSridhar,  General  Manager (Service) as per the direction of the Area Manager,
\nthe petitioner needlessly interfered and threatened the errand boy as  to  how
\nhe  could send this without his permission; the petitioner also hit him on his
\nface.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  These things were alleged to have happened in Pune.    It
\nis  absolutely  meaningless  for the petitioner to ask for an enquiry in Tamil
\nNadu.  Again, as pointed out  on  behalf  of  the  third  respondent,  if  the
\ndisciplinary  action  initiated  against  him  results  in  imposition  of any
\npunishment, it is  always  open  to  him  to  move  the  machinery  under  the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act and seek remedy and if before the authority under the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act the complaint of the  petitioner  is  entertained,  it
\nwould  be  open  to  the  third  respondent  to  justify his action by leading
\nevidence.  It is, therefore, totally unnecessary to stall the  proceedings  at
\nthis stage.    Further,  if objections are available to the petitioner, he can
\nraise them at the enqiry and without prejudice to  those  objections,  he  can
\nparticipate  in  the  enquiry  and  avail of the opportunities given to him to
\ndefend his case.  I do not wish to say anything further.  The  demand  of  the
\npetitioner  to have the enquiry at some place in Tamil Nadu and for conducting
\nof the proceedings in Tamil appears to be rather unreasonable.  His demand for
\nassistance of a lawyer also does not appear to  be  justified.    But,  it  is
\nalways  open  to  the  petitioner,  as  pointed  out  on  behalf  of the third
\nrespondent that he could raise all objections available  to  him  and  without
\nprejudice  to those objections, choose to either participate in the enquiry or
\nremain ex parte and take the matter  for  adjudication  under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act before the proper authority.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   It  is  also pointed out that enquiry had been proceeded
\nwith and witnesses are being examined.  The  main  object  of  the  petitioner
\nappears to be to abort the proceedings by some means.  This cannot be allowed.
\nIn my  view, the writ petition is premature and is misconceived.  It is liable
\nto be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.  The connected  miscellaneous
\npetition is also dismissed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   It  is,  however,  expected  that  in the conduct of the
\nenquiry, the principles of natural justice will be followed and the petitioner
\nwould be afforded proper opportunity to defend himself.\n<\/p>\n
21-3-2002
\nIndex:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes
\nIGP<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The commissioner of Labour,
\nDMS Campus, Teynampet,
\nChennai  600 006.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Commissioner of
\nLabour, 5, Shivaji Nagar,
\nPune  411 005.\n<\/p>\n
3.  T.V.S.  Motor Company Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
– Rep.  by its Vice President
\n(I.R.) Thiru S.  Rajagopaln,
\nHarita, Hosur,
\nDharmapuri District  635 109.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Shri M.R.  Mande,
\nLabour Law Consultant\/
\nEnquiry Officer,
\nPrem Mohan Multipurpose
\nSecurity & Allied Services
\n(P.) Ltd., C-6, Shangrilla
\nGarden, II Floor,
\n31, Bund Garden Road,
\nPune  411 001.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH W.P.No.1276 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.1586 of 2003 P. Natarajan, S\/o P. Perumal, S.No.47, Sunitha Nagar, Dunkrik Post, Wadagaoncheri, Pune 411 014. … Petitioner -Vs- […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-27T08:59:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T08:59:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3713,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\",\"name\":\"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T08:59:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-27T08:59:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T08:59:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003"},"wordCount":3713,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003","name":"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T08:59:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-natarajan-vs-the-commissioner-of-labour-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Natarajan vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 21 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215738\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}