P.Anandhakumar v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.Nos.22028 of 2002 TAMILNADU MINERALS LTD REP BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR PETITIONER(S) Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HIGH COURT BUILDING CHENNAI-104 AND 2 OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijay For R1 : Labour Court.
For R3 : Mr.V. Ajoy Khose W.P.No. 7814 of 2003 METTUR GENERAL WORKERS UNION PETITIONER(S) Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIES TRIBUNAL CHENNAI AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) For Petitioner : Mr.V. Ajoy Khose For R1 : Labour Court.
For R2 : Mr.B.Vijay 1/5
ORDER
Mr.V.Ajay Khose, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen would submit that the matter is now being contested by the Mettur General Workers Union.
2. As far as the present union is concerned, originally when it filed the claim petition, even though it was mentioned that the number of workmen who are involved in the dispute was 79 in Yellikaradur quarry and 40 in Karunkal Anai, totalling 119, no annexure was originally filed by the petitioner Union. However, only along with the proof affidavit, the names of 106 workmen were furnished. In the continuation of proceedings, the other union which had only filed an annexure chose not to contest the matter. Therefore, the petitioner union doesn't know about the exact annexure, which was filed along with the industrial dispute, but 58 members of the said union have since become members of the petitioner union. As a result, as of today, the petitioner Union is representing a total number of 164 workmen who have worked in these four quarries. The dispute is being pressed on behalf of these 2/5
164 workmen. If the records are read in this proper perspective, there will not be any contradiction in the names as claimed by the management.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent management would submit that he will also respond to the same. However, he would also further submit that pursuant to the earlier attempts which were made including the query by this Court, as to whether any settlement is possible, the matter is now placed before the Board to get their approval with reference to the outer limit of compensation that can be paid. Once the Board sanctions the money, it would be easier for them to negotiate with the workmen and bring about the settlement, if any possible. The learned Counsel submits that within two weeks from today, the Board is likely to be convened.
4. Though, this Court has been hearing this matter for the past one month and these are the cases of the years 2002 and 2003, considering the genuine attempt made by the management to get approval for settlement, this Court deems it fit to grant one more opportunity. It is made clear that the present opportunity will be the final one and no further time will be extended. 3/5
As and when the Board approves the amount, it is for the management to take a decision and communicate the same to the learned counsel appearing on behalf the workmen and come up with the figure which they are willing to offer. Any negotiation, if any, should be finalised and reported before this Court.
5. This Court heard both the learned counsel on the merits of the issues. If any settlement is not reported, the Court will proceed to pass orders on merits.
6. Call this matter on 03.01.2025.
09.12.2024 nsl 4/5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl W.P.No. 22028 of 2002 and 7814 of 2003 09.12.2024 5/5