AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of declaration, declaring the action of the 1st respondent management in not providing work to the seniors before providing work to the juniors, in the respective categories, as illegal and in violation of Schedule V to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and Articles 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent management to provide work for all the willing workmen, based on seniority.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the first respondent management is under liquidation and an official liquidator has been appointed in respect of the first respondent Mills. All the issues pertaining to the first respondent Mills is under the control of the official liquidator.
The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent had also placed before this Court, a communication, dated 20.11.2008, from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, addressed to the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, wherein it has been stated that the first respondent Management is under liquidation and it is under the control of the official liquidator.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not refuted the statements made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. However, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had prayed that the workmen concerned may be permitted to approach the official liquidator for necessary reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition.
In view of the submissions being made, the writ petition stands closed. However, it is open to the workmen concerned to approach the official liquidator to seek necessary reliefs. No costs.