The Hindu Business Line : Alleged violation of wage accord by company

Chennai April 19 An application by the management of Chennai-based Rane Brake Linings Ltd to Assistant Commissioner of Labour (ACL) not to conduct any enquiry about a complaint lodged by the Employees Union alleging violation of a wage-cum-workload settlement dated December 4, 2002 and a plea by the Union to the ACL to process its application dated September 1, 2006 led to a legal tangle.

And the Madras High Court in its order said that the writ petitions by both parties were "misconceived".

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who perused relevant records pertaining to the issue since "both sides were absent" during the hearing, said the contention of the management that ACL should not conduct any enquiry was unwarranted since its right was in no way affected by issuance of impugned notice.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, ACL was not the prosecuting authority, and even if he was authorised by the Government to prosecute the management, it required authorisation by the Government under Section 34.

3-tier defence option

Even in such prosecution, the management could take out such defence as were available to it.

The management had a three-tier defence — i) convincing ACL by pleading that no notice could be taken on complaint by the trade union; ii) prevail upon Government not to sanction prosecution; and iii) have a full-fledged defence pleaded before the appropriate criminal court to justify their innocence.

Cause for dismissal

Though application was under Section 29 read with Section 32, the need for issuance of notice to directors did not arise.

Therefore, at the stage of the proceedings before the ACL, there was no necessity for the directors to be present, and a representative could instead appear on their behalf.

Hence, the writ petition by the management was being dismissed.

Regarding the petition by the trade union, the Judge said that its complaint was served on the ACL on September 4, 2006 and he had also issued notice to both parties.

Respondents (Secretary, Labour, Commissioner of Labour and ACL) were not in any way guilty of any inaction. Hence, the petition was unnecessary and it stood dismissed.

It was left to the authorities to follow up the matter in accordance with the law.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Fire at membrane cell plant hits Travancore Cochin Chem output

Hotel Leelaventure plans $100-m FCCB issue

Tata to regain goods in HM factory

Alleged violation of wage accord by company

Zydus Cadila acquires Japan's Nippon Universal

Shareholders, creditors clear IPCL-RIL merger

Philips India eyeing buyouts for growth

Penalty on Tata Chem set aside

Praj entering into joint venture with Aker Kvaerner

Simplex Projects, Dutch co join hands for parking solutions

Workshop on academic interface

Meet on materials management

Nissan plans compact car segment entry

Dr Lal PathLabs plans laboratory for clinical research

Anil Singhvi may quit Guj Ambuja