If There Is No Provision Under Industrial Disputes Act To Redress Grievance Of Workman, Doors Of Civil Court Are Always Open: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has held that the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to redress grievances of workmen when there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act to redress such a grievance.
The Court allowed a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the Secretary of the Vellore District Dr. Ambedkar General Workers Union, challenging the return of their plaint by the District Munsif Court which held, “As per representation, the suit to be filed before the Labour Court.” The High Court set aside the endorsement made by the District Munsif and directed it to number the case and decide on its merits.
A Single Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “The bar of jurisdiction of civil Court with respect to Industrial Disputes Act arises, when there is a mechanism available under the Industrial Disputes Act, to redress the grievance of a workman or a Union. If there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, the doors of the Civil Court are always open to a party to knock on. The Industrial Disputes Act, as it stands today, does not contemplate the Tribunal to grant any interim order. There is no provision for a party to initiate a suit before the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for the injunctive reliefs. Injunction can only be granted by the Civil Court, unless and until the said power is specifically denuded from the Civil Court and granted to any Special Court or Tribunal.”
Advocate S.T. Varadharajulu represented the Petitioner.
The Petitioner sought a prohibitory injunction against the management of TAW Footwear Division to prevent the sale of machinery. Through the plaint, it pleaded that contrary to the claims of the workmen, the Respondent was attempting to sell the machinery and ensure that the workmen were not paid their dues.
The suit came to be presented but was returned questioning its maintainability. Endorsement was made and represented. Yet, again it was returned saying that the previous return was not complied with. Finally, the District Munsif returned the plaint stating, “As per representation, the suit to be filed before the Labour Court. Hence, the plaint is returned.”
The High Court pointed out that the Industrial Disputes Act does not contemplate the Industrial Tribunal to grant any interim order. Similarly, there is also no provision for a party to initiate a suit before the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for an injunctive relief.
“Apart from these aspects, I have to recollect to the judgment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee in Selvaraju and Others -vsKoodankulamPower Corporation [2021 (4) CTC 539]. The learned Judge has held that at the time of numbering of the plaint, the Court is only performing ministerial act. He need a Court at that stage, need not take upon itself the role of the defendant and raise the issues which ought to be raised on the judicial side,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court set aside the endorsement and held, “The learned Judge is requested to receive the plaint and number the same if it is otherwise in order…With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management