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

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...