← Library
Madras High CourtWP/26656/2013allowed

V.Rasu v. The Administrator

2015-03-05Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Sasidharan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURDE AT MADRAS

Dated: 05.03.2015 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.No.26656 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 V.Rasu .. Petitioner vs.

1.The Administrator, Kalmandapam Co-op Milk Producers Society Ltd., P.301, Kalmandapam, Nettapakkam Post, Pondicherry 2.Registrar of Co-operative Society, V.V.P.Nagar, Tattanchavadi, Puducherry ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Order dated 17.07.2013 in R.P.No.2 of 2013 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to take the same on file and pass orders in Review Petition No.2 of 2013 on merits of the case, after a hearing in accordance with law, within a time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar Rao For respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar,G.A.(P)

ORDER

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.2013, whereby and whereunder the second respondent rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the award passed by the Labour Court on merits has become final.

2. The petitioner worked as a Secretary of the first respondent Society. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Pondicherry in I.D.No.2 of 2000. The Labour Court having found that the petitioner was a Secretary of the Society, opined that the Industrial Dispute, at his instance, is not maintainable. Thereafter the Labour Court considered the matter on

merits and ultimately the dispute was decided as against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner initially filed a writ petition, challenging the award dated 11.11.2002 in I.D.No.2 of 2000, before this Court. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a revision petition before the second respondent. The revision petition filed thereafter was rejected by the second respondent on the ground that it is not possible for the Registrar to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner initiated proceedings before the Labour Court in I.D.No.2 of 2000. The Labour Court was of the view that the industrial dispute was not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, as he was working as a Secretary. It was only thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to consider the matter on merits. In case the Labour Court is of the view that the industrial dispute is not maintainable at the instance of a Secretary, the Court should not have proceeded to consider the matter on merits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead), through his LRs., (1990 (1) Supreme Court Cases

193) in support of his contention that in case the Court has no jurisdiction, the matter should not be decided on merits.

7. The Supreme Court in the case cited supra made it very clear that the decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is per se nullity and a plea regarding nullity can be set up whenever and whereever the decree is sought to be enforced or relied on, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings.

8. In the subject case, the Labour Court has given a clear finding that the dispute is not maintainable. There is no question of taking up the matter thereafter on merits. The petitioner therefore is perfectly correct in his contention that the order passed by the Labour Court is per se nullity and the same would not stand against him in a collateral proceedings or while continuing the said proceedings before the another forum.

9. The second respondent dismissed the revision petition only on the ground that the Labour Court has passed an order on merits. Now that I have concluded that the Labour Court erred in giving a finding on merits, necessarily the issue requires to be considered by the second respondent afresh on merits.

10. In the result, the impugned 17.07.2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent . The second respondent is directed to entertain the revision petition and pass fresh orders, without in any way being influenced by the observations made by the Labour Court in its award in I.D.No.2 of 2002. Since the petitioner initiated the original proceedings as early as in 2000, every effort should be taken by the second respondent to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar Dated:16.3.15 True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Administrator, Kalmandapam Co-op Milk Producers Society Ltd., P.301, Kalmandapam, Nettapakkam Post, Pondicherry 2.Registrar of Co-operative Society, V.V.P.Nagar, Tattanchavadi, Puducherry +1 cc to M/s.Giridhar & sai, Advocate,SR.12818 +1 cc to Government Pleader,Pondicherry, sR.12636 +1 cc to Mr.R.Sreedhar, Advocate,SR.12493.

vsn(co) krd 23/3 W.P.No.26656 of 2013