The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent, the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai dated 05.04.2007.
2. The petitioner who was employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation earlier filed a complaint before the Secretary to Government dated 16.06.2003. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition being numbered W.P.(MD).No.7540 of 2006 seeking to set aside the order of the first respondent, the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai dated 09.11.2005, wherein the petitioner was informed by the first respondent that there was no prima facie case made out for taking action against respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition. It was held to be a private dispute between the petitioner and certain other person. This Court by an order dated 18.09.2006 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour and directed him to hold a further enquiry.
3. Based on the direction of this Court an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. The said officer sent a report dated 19.08.2005. It was thereafter, the first respondent passed a detailed order dated 05.04.2007 rejecting the request made by the petitioner. The first respondent held that the petitioner had not made out a case of unfair labour practices so as to punish the respondents 3 and 4 under Sections 25(T) and
25(U) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The first allegation was that when he gave a complaint against the third respondent for obtaining loan of Rs.1,000/-, a disciplinary action was taken and the petitioner had participated in the disciplinary proceedings and his evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the enquiry officer found that the charges were not proved. Certainly, this would not amount to be an act of unfair labour practices. The second allegation was that the petitioner will do only the work of tinkering and he was asked to do additional works which were not connected with his duty. Only because the petitioner refused to do the additional duty, disciplinary action was taken and hence that will come under an act of unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Labour was not valid.
5. This Court is unable to accept the same. It is an admitted fact that
Section 2(ra) of the Act defines unfair labour practices and V-schedule set outs a prohibited list of unfair labour practices, which cannot be committed either by employers or by workmen.
6. Violation of V-schedule has been prohibited under Section 25(T) of the Act. If there was any violation of Section 25(T),
Section 25(U) prescribes penalty. The Act had not created any machinery to go into complaints of violation of such unfair labour practices. The Act only contemplates prosecution of an employer. For prosecuting any person under the Act,
Section 34 of the Act requires prior consent of the State Government. Therefore, the petitioner moving an application before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Labour, who has no authority either to sanction the prosecution nor make any enquiry under the Act and the same was clearly not contemplated under law. Even otherwise the findings were invited by the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Commissioner was not valid.
7. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
jikr To
1.The Commissioner of Labour Chennai.