1.
Ultratech Cement Limited vs Assistant Labour Commissioner
on 6 March, 2024- Gujarat High Court
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Mayank Chavda and learned advocate Mr. Harsh Raval waive service of
notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and respondent no. 2 to
2.4 respectively.
By issuing "rule returnable forthwith," the court signals that it is not
dismissing the writ petition in limine (at the threshold), but is willing
to examine the issues raised, including the maintainability of the writ
petition and the merits of the challenge to the interim order.
2. Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the
appellant preferred a writ appeal but referring to a decision of this
Court in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs.
Chandra Bhan Dubey & Ors. ,
the Division Bench, observed that in an identical fact situation it was
held that writ application would be maintainable, minor distinctions on
facts, here and there, would not make the aforesaid decision
inapplicable to scheduled banks. With such observations the appeal
was dismissed providing that the learned single Judge shall decide writ
petition on merits. The Federal Bank Ltd. has preferred this appeal,
against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
3. E. Kandeeban vs The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner-
Madras High Court
“46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is
not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law,
vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Coimbatore, 20 05 WLR 47, Chandra Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation ( Madurai Division - IV) Ltd., Dindigul Vs. P.Ellappan,
2005 (1) MLJ 639, Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra,
1997 (1) SCC 134 , etc. To obtain a writ the petitioner must not only show
that the law is in his favour, he must also show that equity is in his favour. In
these cases even assuming that there is some technical violation of law, there
is no equity in the petitioners' favour. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise
our discretion under Article 226 in these cases in favour of the petitioners who
have borrowed money and do not wish to repay the same. We have been
informed by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for some of the banks
that about Rs.1,34,000 Crores of bank loans are outstanding in India and have
not been repaid. In many cases, there have been interim orders of various
Courts which have stayed the recoveries. Many of such interim orders were
wholly unjustified, and passed only by adopting an over liberal approach.
4. Arvind Kumar Jain And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And
Ors. on 10 July, 2007
This judgment deals with a legal question about whether a writ appeal is
maintainable against interlocutory (interim) orders passed by a Single Judge
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in light of the proviso to Section
2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005.
Under Article 226, High Courts have broad powers to issue directions, orders,
or writs. Orders passed in writ jurisdiction can be interlocutory or final. Not all
interim orders are unappealable—only routine or procedural ones are clearly
barred. If an interim order decides a core issue, or causes serious injustice, a
writ appeal is maintainable despite the proviso.
5. Allahabad High Court – Writ Petition No.13026 of 2006
The Allahabad High Court entertained a writ petition against an interim order
of the Labour Court/Commissioner on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
violation of natural justice. Writ Maintainable on the Grounds: Lack of
jurisdiction, violation of natural justice.
6. Karnataka High Court – Mahindra Aerostructures Case (2025)
The Karnataka High Court quashed an interim order by the Labour
Commissioner directing payment of wages without hearing the management
and union. The writ was entertained on grounds of violation of natural justice
and lack of jurisdiction. Writ Maintainable on grounds: Violation of natural
justice, lack of jurisdiction.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Manjunath Shinde, AIR 1990 SC 1982
The Supreme Court held that interim orders passed by Labour Courts are
interlocutory and do not finally decide the rights of the parties. However, the
Court recognized that such orders can be challenged by writ petition if the
Labour Court acted without jurisdiction or violated natural justice.
8. Union of India v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Supreme Court, 2015
The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition challenging an interim order
passed by the Labour Commissioner on grounds of jurisdictional errors and
procedural irregularities.Writ Maintainableon the Grounds: Jurisdictional error,
procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice.
9. M/S Wonderla Holidays Limited vs Assistant Labour
Commissioner on 5 November, 2018- Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court entertained the writ petition filed by Wonderla
Holidays Limited against the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner
declaring five workmen as “protected workmen” under Section 33(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On what ground is the writ maintainable? Violation of Statutory
Provisions: The management argued that the Commissioner failed to apply the
correct legal standards under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
Rule 62 of the Karnataka Rules.
10. Puthiya Jananayaga Thozhilalar Munnai vs Government Of
Tamil Nadu
Writ can be issued even against private individual, if the issues relate to public
duty or public interest.
11. Union of India v. Rajasthan Annushakti Karamchari Union
Rawatbhata (1976)
the writ petitions were dismissed.
The grounds for dismissal were:
Rule 61(1) is directory, not mandatory: The court held that the time
limit of April 30th for filing applications for "protected workman" status
is not a strict requirement. Missing this deadline does not automatically
invalidate the application. The primary objective of Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act is to protect trade union workers, and a rigid
interpretation of the rule would defeat this purpose.
Assistant Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction: The court found that a
dispute existed regarding the recognition of protected workmen
(specifically concerning the timeliness of the applications). Rule 61(4)
explicitly grants the Conciliation Officer (in this case, the Assistant
Labour Commissioner) the authority to resolve such disputes.
No manifest error of law: The court stated that the petitioner
(employer) failed to demonstrate any clear legal error in the Assistant
Labour Commissioner's orders, which were seen as being in line with
substantial justice.
To avert miscarriage of justice: The court was not inclined to use its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with orders that aimed to
provide the protection intended by the Industrial Disputes Act to the
workmen.
12. OCL India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors.
The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the issues raised
pertained to the jurisdiction and powers of the State Government under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners sought to challenge the corrigendum
issued by the State Government, which they argued was beyond its
jurisdiction.
