Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3245 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2012-07-24

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment : 1. This matter has been listed today, under the caption `For being Mentioned’. 2. Mr.G. Raja Gopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent union, which had been impleaded as a respondent during the pendency of the writ petition, had submitted that this Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders, in line with the order passed by this Court, on 25.11.2010, in M.P.No.1 of 2010, in M.P.No.2 of 2007, in W.P.No.15104 of 2007, to protect the interests of the employees, who are members of the 7th respondent Union. He had further pleaded that this Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent State Bank of India to sell the property in question, by way of public auction, in such a manner that the amounts due to the employees concerned, as arrears of salary, are sufficiently available for disbursement, after meeting the dues payable to the Commercial Tax Department concerned. 3. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that a settlement, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated 30.3.2011, had been entered into between the petitioner management and the 7th respondent union, wherein sufficient safe guards have been provided for protecting the arrears of salary payable to the members of the said union. Therefore, no further clarification is necessary in the writ petition, in W.P.No.15104 of 2007, which has been dismissed, as withdrawn, on 13.6.2012. He had also pointed out that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court, in Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437, no order of an interim nature or any benefit obtained thereof, by the parties concerned, can be said to exist or continue after final orders are passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the order passed, by this Court, in M.P.No.1 of 2010, in M.P.No.2 of 2007, in W.P.No.15104 of 2007, cannot be said to be continuing or binding, at this stage, after the writ petition had been withdrawn, by the petitioner, especially, in the view of the settlement concluded, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Accordingly, the order passed, by this Court, in M.P.No.1 of 2010, in M.P.No.2 of 2007, in W.P.No.15104 of 2007, cannot be said to be continuing or binding, at this stage, after the writ petition had been withdrawn, by the petitioner, especially, in the view of the settlement concluded, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State Bank of India had submitted that the property in question would be sold by way of a public auction, based on the recommendations made by a special committee, constituted for the said purpose and therefore, the members of the 7th respondent union need not have any apprehension that the said property would be sold for a lesser value, in order to defeat the rights of the employees concerned. He had further submitted that sufficient funds would be available, after the sale of the property in question, to take care of the interests of the members of the 7th respondent union. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court does not find it appropriate to make any further observations or orders, with a view to protect and safe guard the interests of the members of the 7th respondent union. As such, no further orders are necessary, in W.P.No.15014 of 2007, which has been permitted to be withdrawn, by the petitioner, by an order passed by this Court, on 13.6.2012.