Skip to main content

Denying member entry to union office denial of fundamental - Madras HC

In a May Day gift to the working class, the Madras High Court today made it clear that denying any union member entry to the union office inside the workplace premises amounts to denial of Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) to (c) of the Constitution and statutory rights guaranteed under the Trade Unions Act.

Justice D Hariparanthaman stated this while rejecting the petition of the management of Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Limited Heavy Chemicals Division that allowing entry to P Anburajaaraman, vice-president of the employees union, facing suspension and departmental enquiry, would create disturbance to industrial peace.

"The action of the management would amount to unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with clause 1 and 9 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. There is no statutory prohibition of commission of unfair labour practice under Section 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947," the judge said.

The petitioner first filed a writ petition challenging the March 12, 2013 suspension order and sought to quash it.

Since a charge-sheet was issued and departmental enquiry was completed, he confined his prayer for a direction from the court to permit him to the union office to discharge his union activities.

The management, which refused him permission inside the premises, in its counter affidavit alleged that allowing him would cause disturbance to industrial peace.

The judge rejected this contention and pointed out that the charge-sheet did not mention riotous misbehaviour, but that he was practising siddha, Yoga and and Varmakala while in employment, which as per the standing orders of the company amounted to misconduct.

The judge directed the management to permit the petitioner to discharge his union activities.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/denying-member-entry-to-union-office-denial-of-fundamental-114043001658_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more