The Management v. Srf And Srf (Polymers) Employees Union

in W.P.No.15478 of 2020 (Through Video Conferencing) C.SARAVANAN, J.

This petition has been filed for clarifying the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15478 of 2020 which is reproduced below:- Today (22.10.2020) when the case was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the employer / fourth respondent appeared and submitted that there is no proposal to terminate* any of the 127 employees of the petitioner's union. None of the employees are to be transferred /relocated to other units of the fourth respondent whether in Tamilnadu and outside Tamilnadu pending further orders.

2. The undertaking of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent stands recorded. Meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve notice on the official respondents. Private notice is also permitted.

3. Post this case on 28.10.2020 for further orders. (* service of) Page No 1 of 4

2. Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, the learned Senior Counsel for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Company for the petitioner/4th respondent and Mr.T.Mohan for Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner. I am to state that there is nothing to be clarified in the said order. It was an interim order passed as a stop gap arrangement subject to further orders to be passed on 28.10.2020 after the vacation. The said order dated 22.10.2020 has not been passed on merits. It was passed based on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner/4th respondent and to protect the interest of employees.

3. It appears that the learned counsel on record for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had also given a representation before the Registry through E.Mail on 27.10.2020 with a request to mention the above writ petition before the Court for listing the case as it was not listed for hearing on 28.10.2020. However, on the following the day, the learned counsel on record for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner withdrew the same. Thereafter, neither the 1st respondent/writ petitioner nor the learned counsel for the petitioner/4th respondent have taken any steps to Page No 2 of 4

list the case before the court. Instead, a contempt petition has been filed by 1st respondent/writ petitioner while this petition has been filed by the petitioner/4th respondent for clarifying the order dated 22.10.2020.

4. It was incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and the petitioner/4th respondent to list this case before the Court for further orders as was ordered on 22.08.2020.

5. As the order is clear, there is no merits in the present petition. Therefore, I do not find any reasons for giving any clarification to the order dated 22.08.2020. This petition is therefore dismissed. 10.11.2020 jen Page No 3 of 4

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jen 10.11.2020 Page No 4 of 4