Management filed writ petitions to quash Labour Court orders awarding backwages based on workman's evidence. Justice Hariparamathan dismissed petitions, noting the Management offered no evidence and their own worksheet supported the workman's claim.
Writ petitions dismissed. Management directed to deposit Rs.3,29,542/- during pendency.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Writ Petition Nos.28573 and 28574 of 2007 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
The Management of
M/s.Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., Sipcot Industrial Complex, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005.
... Petitioner in both
WPs
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore 607 001.
2.G.Peter ... Respondents in both WPs
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the order dated 13.06.2007 passed by the first respondent in C.P.No.276 of 2000 and C.P.No.938 of 2003 respectively.
For Petitioner :Ms.D.Veda for M/s.Meenakshi Sundaram
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muralidharan for R2
Heard both sides.
backwages from 14.11.1995 - the date of his termination upto 31.08.2003, since he filed the subsequent C.P.No.938 of 2003 on 09.09.2003 and also claimed other attendant benefits as per the Award referred to above.
9.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
of the writ petition is extracted in this regard:-
"15. The second respondent in his written submissions inter alia referred to a calculation sheet presented by the petitioner during the hearing wherein a sum of Rs.4,73,678 was suggested for payment in full and final settlement of accounts, as against the claim of Rs.5,06,030 for the period and submitted that the first respondent may scrutinise both workings and direct the Management to pay whichever figure the first respondent thought was correct: -
"eph;thfk; ePjpkd;wk; Kd;ghf kDjhuUf;F mspj;j xh;f;c&Pj; fdk; ePjpkd;wk; ghh;itf;F ,izf;fg;gLfpwJ/ , e;j xh;f;c&Pjpd;gona ghh;j;jhYk; 31/7/2003 tiu kDjhuUf;F nru ntz;oa gpd; rk;gs ghf;fp U: 4.73.678/00 1/8/2003 Kjy; Pmzp tH';fpa 29/11/2003 tiu 4 khjk; U: 32.352/00 Mfbkhj;jk; U: 5.06.030/00 ,nj xh;f;c&Pl;oy; nehl;lP!; rk;gsk;. Ml;Fiwg;g [ ec&;l<L. fpuh$%tpjp vd U: 1.30.030.15 bfhLj;J fzf;ifna Kog;gjhf brhd;djhy; kDjhuh; fzf;F g[og;gjw;F xg;g [f;bfhs;stpy;iy/ bjhlh;e;J gzp bra;ant kDjhuh; tpUk;g [fpwhh;/ nkYk; eph;thfj;jpd; xh;f;c&Poy; mthh;l;go ,ju rYiff;fshd. nghd!;. fUizj;bjhif 8 Mz;LfSf;F nrh;f;fg;gltpy;iy/ ,ija[k; nrh;j;jhy; ruhrhpahf Mz;L 1f;F nuh 8000/- tpfpjk; U:/ 64.000/- nruntz;Lk; ,Ug;gpDk; jw;nghija epiyapy; kDjhuhpd; 2 kDf;fs; nghpy; nfhhpf;if U: 5.23.170/- eph;thfj;jpd; xh;f;c&Pl; go U: 4.73.678/- vd TWtjhy; fdk; ePjpkd;wk; ,uz;ila[k; ghprPypj;J fdk; ePjpkd;wj;Jf;F ,uz;oy; vJ rhpahdJ vd njhd;Wfpwnjh mj;bjhif kDjhuUf;F eph;thfjhd; nru ntz;oa fzf;fPl;L cj;jputhf kDjhuh; ntz;Lfpwhh; "
The aforesaid offer made by the Management is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Management. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the offer made by the Management is not disputed.
not find fault with the order of the Labour Court in arriving at the amount based on the computation given by the workman. Further more, there is no much difference between the amount as computed by the Labour Court and the Management. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court, particularly, when the Management failed to give any evidence in the claim petitions.
Sd/Deputy Registrar (Judicial) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore 607 001. 1 cc to M/s. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, Sr. 58119 2 ccs to M/s.R. Muralidharan, Advocate, Sr. 57991
Writ Petition Nos.28573 and 28574 of 2007 BR (CO) kk 23/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's computation of backwages when the Management failed to adduce evidence?
Whether the amount claimed by the workman differs significantly from the Management's own worksheet?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Hariparamathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
