Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
V.Prakash vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 14 December, 2007
Showing the contexts in which ARAKKONAM appears in the document
Change context size
Current

Madras High Court V.Prakash vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 14 December, 2007 DATED : 14.12.2007 CORM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P. No.36263 of 2007 and M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 V.Prakash Sr.Advocate Honorary President MRF Units Workers Union No.50 Armenian Street Ist Floor Chennai 600 001. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Arakkonam. 2. The Inspector of Police Taluk Police Station Arakkonam. 3. MRF Limited Itchiputhur Arakonam 631 003 Rep. By its Plant Manager ( Impleaded as R.3 vide order of Court in M.P. No.2 of 2007 dt.14.12.2007 ) ..Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash,Party-in-person For respondents : Mr.K.M.Ramesh for impleading respondent in MP.1/07 Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam Assts. For impleading respondent in MP.2/07 N.Senthilkumar, Govt.Advocate for R.1 & R.2 ORDER This Court by order dated 30.11.2007 has disposed of the writ petition with the following direction: " 6. In view

same, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within one week from today and on such representation, the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to address the gate meeting at MRF Factory at Itchiputhur (near Arakkonam) between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. to be held on 16.12.2007 (Sunday), by using megaphone." 2. Subsequently, on the mentioning of Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.MRF Limited, Arakkonam, it was posted for certain clarifications. When the matter was taken up on 4.12.2007, M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.36263 of 2007 was filed by MRF Arakkonam Workers' Welfare Union represented by its Secretary to implead itself as a party and M.P.No.2 of 2007 was filed by MRF Limited, Itchiputhur, Arakkonam, represented by its Plant Manager to implead the company as party. 3. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the management which has filed the impleading petition, M.P.No.2 of 2007 would submit that the abovesaid order can be clarified to the effect that the writ petitioner

impleading petition he has no objection to argue the case on merit again in the presence of counsel for management so that a final order can be passed and submitted that the earlier order dated 30.11.2007 can be recalled. In view of the same, order dated 30.11.2007 is recalled and the writ petition heard along with the said impleading petitions. 4. The writ petition is filed by Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel and also the Honorary President of MRF United Workers Union for direction to the respondents in the writ petition namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam and the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam to permit him to address the workers of MRF Factory at Itchiputhur [near Arakkonam] at the gate meeting between 2.30 pm. and 3.30 pm. to be held on 2.12.2007 (Sunday), as traditionally done in all factories with permission to use mike. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the workers of MRF Limited, having realised that there was no genuine trade union to ventilate the grievances of the workers and the Union existed was operated by the management, started a trade union by name, MRF United Workers Union, which was registered

India and that cannot be deprived of under the guise of an order of injunction. It is, in view of the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the prayer stated above. 7. Even though the prayer was in respect of a gate meeting on 2.12.2007, the petitioner would submit that this being an issue relating to fundamental right, the petitioner has the right to address the meeting on subsequent days and therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition has become infructuous. 8. M.P.No.1 of 2007 is filed by MRF Arakkonam Workers' Welfare Union, which is also stated to be a registered Union, to implead it as a party with the pleadings that the MRF Limited is having a tyre manufacturing factory at Itchiputhur wherein 1416 workers are working and out of them, 1365 are confirmed workmen. According to the petitioner in the said M.P., out of 1365 workmen, 1194 are the members of its Union, 57 workers are members of MRF Cycle Tyre Workers Union and remaining 114 workers alone are the members of MRF United Workers Union to which the writ petitioner is the Honorary President. Therefore, the petitioner