Download link: 
➡ Click here: Tneb janatha sangam
Hariparanthaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner Union is being invited by the respondent for talks with regard to labour matters. Commitment is not compulsory based on u r choice.
Company facilities: - 1 Life long room free 2 permenent job 3 Increment every 3months 4 1 pair of formal and I'd tout Qualification: -M tech,B tech,Degree, ITI,Diploma, all graduated. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present writ petitions, invoking of the Constitution of India, seeking for the reliefs as stated therein. Later it was renamed Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Life Long Income 4. Online Prime ID 3. Job Type: Full-time Experience: fresher's and experience also Language: Tamil,English ,Kannada,Hindi,Telugu language also Contact number or what's up number +919994436248 Pls share in all. Job description- once selected, training period 3 months with certain task. தொழிற் சங்கம் துவங்குவதின் அடிப்படை நோக்கமான தொழிலாளர்களின் பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சிக்கும் பல்வேறு பதவி உயர்வுகளை பெற்றுத் தந்து சமூக அந்தஸ்தை tneb janatha sangam தொழிலாளர் ஐக்கிய சங்கத்திற்கு நிகர் வேறு யாரும் இருக்க முடியாது.
Job Type: Full-time Experience: fresher's and experience also Language: Tamil,English ,Kannada,Hindi,Telugu language also Contact number or what's up number +919994436248 Pls share in all..... Tamil Nadu Electricity Board TNEB is a power generation and distribution company owned by Government of Tamil Nadu. Four of the Unions are recognised by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under the Code of discipline.
- Vaidyanathan, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
Tneb Thozhilalar Aykkia Sangam vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 11 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-12-2007 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. By its General Secretary, 33, Balaji Nagar 2nd Street, Chennai-14. Petitioner in both the writ petitions. Versus Tamilnadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Secretary, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. Respondent in both the writ petitions. For petitioner : Mr. Hariparanthaman For respondents : Mr. Vaidyanathan COMMON ORDER Heard Mr. Hariparanthaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Since the facts and circumstances arising for consideration in both the above writ petitions are the same, a common order is passed. It is stated that the petitioner Union is a Trade Union, registered under the , 1926, with Registration No. The petitioner Union has been espousing the cause of its members who are workmen at various fora. Periodical talks are held with the Superintending Engineers of the respective Circles of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board with regard to the various issues concerning the workmen. It is further stated that there are about 40 registered Trade Unions in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Eight of the forty Unions, including the petitioner Union, are centrally affiliated Unions. Four of the Unions are recognised by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under the Code of discipline. In spite of the petitioner Union being a Centrally affiliated Union, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had not included the petitioner Union in the circulars issued by it with regard to the list of Unions with which the negotiations and discussions would be held regarding the service conditions of its employees and other related issues. In spite of the several representations sent by the petitioner Union, the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had not considered the request of the petitioner Union. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present writ petitions, invoking of the Constitution of India, seeking for the reliefs as stated therein. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is a statutory Corporate Body constituted under of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and it has powers to make regulations and to formulate its own procedures for holding discussions with the Unions. The respondent is not under any statutory obligation to call all the Unions and Associations for discussions and negotiations with regard to the issues relating to its employes. Though the petitioner is a registered Union it is not a recognised Union. In such circumstances, the petitioner Union is not invited for discussions and negotiations, since most of the employees and their interests are represented through the major unions, which are called for discussions. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Hariparanthaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner Union is being invited by the respondent for talks with regard to labour matters. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner Union cannot have a grievance to be espoused through these writ petitions, for the present. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no further orders are required to be passed in these writ petitions. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek redressal of their grievances, if any, at a later stage, in the manner known to law.