Comments
Under Rule 6(4) of the TN Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, an employee aggrieved about his name not being found in the acquittance register could make a complaint to the concerned authority (Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories).
Therefore, when a notice was received by the writ petitioner (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, Tiruchi Unit) from the said authority and the petitioner had raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction, needless to say the authority did not consider those objections before taking a decision in terms of the provisions of the Act, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held.
The notice dated June 17, 2009, by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Mannarpuram, Tiruchi (R-1), which was impugned in this petition, came to be issued at the instance of one G. Rajendiran, who was the convener of the Joint Action Committee of all trade unions, addressed to the District Collector, Tiruchi, and received by R-1. Rajendiran claimed that under the BHEL Complex Co-op Labour Contract Society Ltd (R-2) there were 1,342 workers working on contract basis doing the work of permanent workers and discharging all the duties attached to the permanent post for over 28 years. Therefore, they should be made permanent by BHEL, he said.
Since the letter was forwarded by the District Collector, R-1 called for remarks from the petitioner (BHEL).
The petitioner sent a reply on July 25, 2009, questioning the jurisdiction of the authority as well as the merits of the claim made by Rajendiran.
Mr Justice K. Chandru, who was then sitting on the Madurai Bench, ruled that if R-1 purported to act in terms of the TN Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, then it was a statutory power exercised by such authority.
Certainly a writ petition would not lie against a mere notice of enquiry issued by the statutory authority performing a statutory duty under a valid state enactment.
In the present case, even though the petitioner made a complaint, the entire impugned order came to be issued on the basis of the complaint made by Rajendiran.
The petitioner had not chosen to make him a party. Merely making the Society (R-2) this petition could not be adjudicated.
Hence, both on grounds of maintainability as well as due to non-joinder of necessary parties, the petition was liable to be rejected.
The writ petition was dismissed.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.