Disposed

D.Thakur v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC3 Dec 2014WP/31904/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court recorded a compromise settlement between a workman and management regarding dismissal and back wages. The court directed the Income Tax authorities to grant relief under Section 89 and noted the correct petitioner name for tax proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; direction issued to Income Tax authorities to grant relief under Section 89 within three months of application.

D.Thakur Vs the Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.NOS.31904 AND 31905 OF 2007 AND 7827 OF 2009

¶6

AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS

¶7

W.P.NOS.31904 AND 31905 /2007
D.Thakur .. Petitioner in both WPs
Versus
1.The Presiding Officer
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
2.The Management of
T.T.Krishnamachari & Co.,
No.6, Cathedral Road,
Chennai – 86. .. Respondents in both WPs
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.31904/2007: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of
Certiorari, to call for the records from the 1 st respondent relating
to the preliminary award dated 30.11.2006 in I.D.No.262 of 1996
(Ex.A) and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Principles of Natural Justice.

¶8

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.31905/2007: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 1^st respondent relating to the final award dated 31.01.2007 in I.D.No.262 of 1996 (Ex.B) and quash the same insofar as it had awarded Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation towards the petitioner's non-employment and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent Management to reinstatement the petitioner with full backwages and all other attendant benefits and pay the same with 12% interest per annum.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy for M/s.Row and Reddy For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan (in W.P.Nos.31904 & 31905/2007)

¶11

W.P.NO.7827/2009

¶12

The Management of T.T.Krishnamachari & Co., Rep. By its Chief Accountant V.Mahadevan

¶13

.. Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1.Second Additional Labour Court High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. 2.Thakur .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.7827/2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the 1^st respondent in I.D.No.262 of 1996 dated 31.01.2007 and quash the same.

¶17

W.P.No.7827/2009: For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan For Respondent-2 : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy for M/s.Row and Reddy COMMON ORDER

¶18

The petitioner in W.P.Nos.31904 and 31905 of 2007 is one and the same. The petitioner was a workman employed by the second respondent Management. The second respondent Management is the petitioner in W.P.No.7827 of 2009.

¶19

2.The workman was dismissed from service on 30.11.1995 on certain allegations. The non-employment of the workman was taken before the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.262/1996. The Labour Court passed a preliminary award dated 30.11.2006 holding that the enquiry was fairly conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, after hearing both parties on merit, final award dated 31.01.2007 was passed ordering compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the workman.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

3.Aggrieved over the preliminary award as well as the final award, the workman has filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.31904 and 31905 of 2007 respectively.

¶22

4.The grievance of the workman is that compensation was awarded on the premise that the workman reached the age of superannuation at the time of passing of the award. But according to the workman, he reached the age of superannuation only on 30.12.2009.

¶23

5.The Management has filed writ petition in W.P.No.7827 of 2009 questioning the award granting compensation to the workman.

¶24

6.While so, during the pendency of these writ petitions, the workman and the Management entered into a compromise and the Management has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards backwages for the period of non-employment from 30.11.1995 to 30.12.2009. However, the Management has deducted a sum of Rs.48,610/- towards TDS payable to the Income Tax Department and a demand draft for Rs.7,78,100/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand and One Hundred only) is given to the workman. Further, the Management has paid a sum of Rs.73,290/- towards gratuity for the service rendered by the workman by way of another demand draft. The Management has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards superannuation fund.

¶25

7.A settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 signed by both parties as well as a memo of compromise dated 02.12.2014 to the aforesaid effect are filed. The same is recorded and shall form part of this order.

¶26

8.At this juncture, it is brought to my notice that the workman need not pay income tax for the backwages since the backwages are spread over for so many years (from 30.11.1995 to 30.12.2009) and in that event, there is no reason to deduct TDS on the backwages. It is also stated that the workman is entitled to claim relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act.

¶27

9.In this regard, the learned counsel for the workman has brought to my notice a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SUNDARAM MOTORS (P) LTD. VS. AMEERJAN AND ANOTHER [1984 (II) LLJ SC 22]. The Supreme Court, in an identical situation, as held as follows in para 4 of the judgment:

¶28

“4. We have made it abundantly clear in our judgment and order dated August 7, 1984 that the

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

compensation awarded is in lieu of back wages, and future wages in lieu of reinstatement which were and would be payable from year to year. Therefore, we made it very clear that the entire amount awarded by our judgment shall be spread over from 1970 to 1989, 1970 being the year of dismissal from service and 1989 being the year of retirement on superannuation as per the relevant service rules. We are accordingly clear in our minds that viewed from any angle, respondentAmeerjan, the workman is fully entitled to the relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act. No other view on this point is possible. In order to satisfy the requirements of law, the respondent-Ameerjan shall with the assistance of the appellant and its incometax consultants make the necessary application to the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction in the matter at Bangalore for relief under Section 89 and the officer concerned shall, without further enquiry, grant him immediate relief under Section 89 and dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of the application so that the spirit and purpose of our judgment and order would be implemented without unnecessary delay and the agony and torture of unemployment heaped upon the lowly paid respondent Ameerjan from 1970 be relieved.“

¶31

In my view, the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to this case.

¶32

10.Hence, while recording the settlement as well as the memo of compromise, the Income Tax authorities are directed to pass appropriate order as and when an application is filed by the workman claiming relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶33

11.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Management has stated that the Management will cooperate in the endeavour of the workman in filing the application under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act and all other necessary matters in this regard so as to get the refund of the deducted TDS amount.

¶34

12.The learned counsel for the Management has further stated that the superannuation fund of Rs.2,50,000/- would be paid to the workman within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same is recorded.

¶35

13.Further, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the workman that in the writ petitions, the name of the

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

workman is mentioned as D.Thakur, whereas in the PAN card issued by the Income Tax Department, it is mentioned as DINESHWAR THAKUR. Hence, the Income Tax Department could take into account the fact, Dineshwar Thakur is the workman concerned in these writ petitions and the application under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act shall be disposed of accordingly.

¶38

14.The writ petitions are disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar TK To The Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. Copy to: The Commissioner Income Tax Department Haddows Road, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan ,Advocate, SR.No.58863 1 cc to M/s.Row and Reddy ,Advocate, SR.No.58606 W.P.NOS.31904 AND 31905 OF 2007 AND 7827 OF 2009 br(Co) pmk.22.12.2014

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Thakur v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Thakur v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Rajappa, Vs the Director of Elementary

G. Sridharan Vs the District Forest Officer

S.Murugesan Vs the Director of Elementary

S.Chandrasekaran Vs the Joint Director of

G.M. Sivaraju, Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Radha Bai Vs State of Tamil Nadu