IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.9838 to 9840 of 2001 Madura Coats Limited ...Petitioner in all WPs Vs 1.The Commissioner of Labour Labour Welfare Board Building DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Deputy Commissioner Labour, Anna Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. 3.Madurai Mavatta Desia Panchalai Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam, No.9, Melamariamman Koil Street, Arapalayam, Madurai – 625 016. Rep. By its General Secretary. ...Respondents in all WPs W.P.No.9838 of 2001 Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with order No.A1/70959/2000 dated 14.02.2001 on the file of the first respondent – Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and quash the same. W.P.No.9839 of 2001 Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with order of the second respondent Ref.No.B1/8457/2000 dated 23.04.2001 and quash the same. W.P.No.9840 of 2001 Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records connected order No.N.K.No.A1/808/2000 dated 20.06.2000 confirmed by order No.N.K.No.A1/808/2000 dated 25.07.2000 made by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same and direct the said Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai to proceed with the conciliation pending before him on the disputes raised by third respondent union through its letter dated 19.01.2000. For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam and Associates For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian,A.G.P.for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Kalyanaraman for for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia for R3 C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner is the Management. They have come forward to challenge the advise note given by the Commissioner of Labour dated 14.02.2001. 2. By the said advise, the first respondent Commissioner of Labour informed the Management that pursuant to the strike notice issued by the third respondent Union, conciliation proceedings were pending. The Management was requested to defer the disciplinary action taken against 9 members of the third respondent Union. If any such violation is shown that would amount to contravening Sections 33 (1),(2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Management challenged the said notice in the first writ petition. 3. Pending the notice, an order of interim stay was granted on 15.05.2001. On 19.09.2003, apprehending that the Board of Directors may be prosecuted, the interim stay already granted was made absolute. 4. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the Management filed an additional affidavit dated 27.02.2010. It was stated that the writ petitions relate to two employees viz.,G.Palanimottaiyan and K.Soundararaj. They had started a rival union and raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer stating unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the petitioner Company. The two employees have settled and went on VRS. The third respondent Union is no more in existence as it had got merged with the Naitonal Textile Workers Union, which was recognised by the Management. It was also stated that the said Union has given a letter to the Management addressed to the Labour officer stating that they were not pressing the dispute raised by the third respondent union. 5. However, the first respondent, being a Conciliation officer under the provisions of the I.D.Act even if complaint is made for violation by virtue of Section 33-A(a) of the I.d.Act, he could only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ take cognizance of the complaint in mediating and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute. Unlike Section 33-A(b) of the I.D.Act, the Labour Court, if it seized of any complaint, it can pass an Award as if it is an industrial dispute referred to it. Therefore, when there is no specific power empowered on the first respondent to do anything which can harm the interest of the Management and his power has been circumscribed by Section 33-A(a), the impugned letter can only be taken at the maximum an advise. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen for challenging the said advise note. 6. In the light of the above and also taking into account the subsequent development set out in the additional affidavit, the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar svki To 1.The Commissioner of Labour Labour Welfare Board Building DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Deputy Commissioner Labour, Anna Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. + 1 CC to Govt.Pleader SR 16990 W.P.Nos.9838 to 9840 of 2001 RV(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/