The Superintending Engineer v. The Presiding Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :26.04.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No. 10624 of 2018 and W.M.P.No. 12578 of 2018 1.The Superintending Engineer Purchase and Administration Mettur Thermal Power Station Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd Mettur Dam-646 456, Salem District.
2.The Chief Engineer-Personnel Tamil nadu Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited 8th Floor, N.P.K.R.R.Maligai 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
..Petitioners Vs 1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem.
2.The Central organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees'
Mettur Thermal Power Station Branch CITU Office, Rajaganapathy Nagar Mettur Dam-636 401, Salem District.
... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in REP No.1 of 2015 in ID.No.482 of 2000, and quash the summons dated 19.04.2018 issued for appearance of 2nd petitioner and further forbear the 1st respondent from proceeding any further in REP No.1 of 2015 in I.D.No.482 of 2000.
For Petitioners: Mr.G.Anand for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For R1 : Court For R2 : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records of 1st respondent in REP No.1 of 2015 in I.D.No.482 of 2000 and quash the summons dated 19.04.2018 issued for appearance of 2nd petitioner and further forbear 1st respondent from proceeding any further in REP No.1 of 2015 in I.D.No.482 of 2000.
2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem issued summons for the personal appearance of the second petitioner in REP No.1 of 2015 in I.D.No.482 of 2000.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the petitioners had already appeared in person and filed certain documents. In respect of 20 workmen the dispute was raised and an award was passed and the award became final and the same was implemented in respect of 17 workmen and in respect of 3 workmen the writ petitioners were unable to secure the correct and genuine address of the legal heirs for and therefore, they were are not in a position to provide appointment to these 3 workmen only.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states the writ petitioners have no intention to violate the award passed in I.D.No.482 of 2000 and they have implemented the award passed in respect of 17 workmen, that itself will establish the bonafide of the writ petitioners. However, in respect of 3 workmen they could not able to secure the correct and genuine addresses of the workmen and in the event of producing the correct and genuine address of the legal heirs for those 3 workmen, the writ petitioners' will be in a position to provide appointment as per the award. 4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that in spite of producing all these documents once again the labour court issued summons for the personal appearance of the Chief Engineer, which became unnecessary. The Superintending Engineer had appeared and submitted all the documents, and explained the position in clear terms to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court ought to have proceeded with the documents submitted by the Superintending Engineer concerned.
5.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the summons issued to the second writ petitioner for personal appearance is nothing but a harassment. The officials cannot be harassed in this manner.
6.This court is of an opinion that it is only a summon issued to the Chief Engineer for his appearance and therefore, he has to appear and submit all the required documents and file a counter explaining the factual circumstances and other issues involved in the petition.
7.In the event of filing such a counter affidavit by the second petitioner, the Labour Court is bound to consider all the factual aspects on merits and in accordance with law and thereafter, take a decision accordingly. Thus, this court is not inclined to interfere in respect of the impugned summons issued and the proceedings already initiated by the Labour Court must be allowed to be completed in all respects and an opportunity to be given to the writ petitioners for filing counter and the factual aspects set out by the writ petitioners also to be considered before taking a decision in the case. 8.In this view of the matter no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar maya To The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem.
+1cc to Mr.T.S.GOPALAN & CO, Advocate, S.R.No. 31173 W.P.No. 10624 of 2018 TR(09/05/2018)