The petitioner is carrying on the business of labelling and bundling of beedies supplied by Beedi Traders, who own trade mark. The petitioner used to engage his workmen for labelling and bundling of Beedies. While so, some dispute arose between the petitioner and his workers, on account of which there was industrial unrest.
2. The third respondent union had initiated proceedings before the 2nd respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act and talks between the parties were going on before the 2nd respondent from 22.7.2002 to 3.1.2003.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/first respondent had issued a notice dated 25.1.2003, calling upon the petitioner and the union to appear before him for peace talks. Accordingly, on 11.3.2003, at 11.00 am., peace talks were held under the head of Revenue Divisional Officer/first respondent, between the petitioner and the union, wherein it was also resolved that in respect of shifting of petitioner's establishment at Melapalayam premises, a decision must be taken and the same should be informed to the first respondent on 20.3.2003. The petitioner, on 7.4.2003, wrote a letter to the first respondent, expressing its inability to carry on the business at Melapalayam. In the meeting held on 8.4.2003, the first respondent once again threatened the petitioner that the workmen should be given work only at Melapalayam. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition, seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from holding any meeting in respect of its proceedings No./6430/2002.
4. This Court, at the time of admission, granted interim injunction on 21.4.2003 and the same was made absolute on 28.8.2003.
5. The fact remains that the dispute between the petitioner and its workers was seized by the Labour Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court perused the impugned record of proceedings dated 11.3.2003 of the Revenue Divisional Officer and found that the Revenue Divisional Officer has encroached into the domain of authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act by getting an undertaking from the management that they would distribute the beedies for packing equally to all the workers and not outsiders. That apart, the Revenue Divisional Officer has also got an undertaking from the management that they will establish an unit in Melapalayam and that they will pay the wages prescribed by the Government to the workers. In the considered opinion of this Court, these are aspects, which have to be dealt with only by the authorities under the Industrial laws and not by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding is quashed. No costs.
20.01.2017 Index:Yes/No ajr P.N.PRAKASH, J.
ajr To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirunelveli
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Tirunelveli W.P.No.12099 of 2003 20.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in