New Doc 11 Aug 2021 11.42

You might also like

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 14
p 2024 Mills 1, oF Mls, C6) Rep. by its Chain M, ln Sti Sumanth Ramamyc Aged about 61 years petitioner And Abou, Onli thapuran “lation Officer cer, 7 *IMuiat Tribunal cum LY, Super « ; are cei Milla Unit “Puram Dist "7, KIRIKERA, . Respondents The i Ie sides for service on the at bove n, is that of their counsel i | KVR Choy Med Petitioners is that o No.1 1536835, Viena hia, en, Anuacha, “Advocates, H. * Amaravetni-s00020 against the cann 1on of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 and offends Article 16 and 19 of Constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of ‘the case, COUNSEL FOR PETOITIONER ‘Amaravathil Er ~ ,OF Mey 4 we Mi Co, 8 stat? AN ngs OF Te Nah bine ATURE A SAY AMARA Warn, 544 ana Between: Mis, ‘Super Spinning ceistered Office, Elgi Towers, Red Coimbatore ep. by its Chat ri SUM, W loner. sed abou MAMURTi . Pat and ~ The Joint: Commissioner, Of Labour “moo Zong Kuma] nw, Commissioner f Labous/ "ellistion Officer Antenna Dae! Avantgpara “ The Chaman, Rim Presiding Ores, ‘dustin Tia eum Sor Cou 5 Scerctary, Mill “Am yi, ecrika Songham, Se? KIRIKERA eal, "Red Fields, Coimbaore South, Pin - Ws hereby solemnly affiem and sincerely state as follo ma itn Shima tree che HORNY, 801 US ees Golds, bene ita a oie NDUR See Foo, 6 ( r See MSE he Fey wey Othe ease, Meteore Lm in a i position to depose this affidavit, ‘The aforesnid wait petition is Filey gua. Ng the legality and validity of reference purportedly under Section 19 OF tngytigy Dispute Act, 1947 vide LxNoDU/1515/2020 dated 1975/2021 issucd bythe 2% Respondent herein othe «respondent erin refeting the alleged indus dispute, “Whether the ction ofthe management of Super Spinning Mis Limited, “4° nit, Kira, Hindus juste Inno considering the carer offlowing demands ofthe Union. 1. Declare the lay-off announced by the management of Super Spinning Mills ‘Limited, “A' Unit, Kirikera, Hindupur(Mj, without prior permission as illegal. 2. Directing the respondent, the management to pay wages/compensation for illegal lay-off and 10 reopen the factory. 3. Declaring the action of Management that “there are only two permanent workers and all other workers are casual type of workers” as illegal. ‘Uf not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? 3, T may at once point out that the reference ofan alleged dispute is wholly illegal, incompetent and nonexistent, in as much as, atthe tine of raising such dispute allegedly by the 5* Respondent herein, the existing two trade unions of the ‘workmen of the unit including the 5* respondent union have already settled al the

You might also like