High Court held that the Labour Court's finding denying backwages to a reinstated workman based on the assumption of huge profits from a shop was perverse due to lack of evidence. Petition allowed and matter remanded.
Writ petition allowed; matter remanded to Labour Court to decide entitlement of backwages within six months.
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: 04.12.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.37838 OF 2007
A.Samiappan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Coimbatore.
2.The Management
Sri. Chandra Transport
38, Ram Nagar,
Thirupur, Coimbatore District.
3.The Management
Sri Sundaram Transport
118, Main Road,
Nambiyur. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the award dated 24.04.2006 in I.D.No.238/02 and quash the award insofar as the denial of backwages and other attendant benefits with continuity of service.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan For Respondent-3: Mr.G.Anand for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
O R D E R
The petitioner was employed as a Conductor initially in the third respondent Transport. The third respondent transferred the permit of the bus along with four employees, including the petitioner herein, to the second respondent, on 01.06.1999. The petitioner was terminated from service by the second respondent on 31.08.1999.
2.The petitioner took up his non-employment before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.238/2002. Before the first respondent Labour Court, the petitioner got examined as W.W.1 and on his side, 13 documents were marked as Exs.W1 to W13. The third respondent got examined as M.W.1 and on the side of the Management, 10 documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M10. The second respondent did not let in any evidence.
3.It is not known from the records as to who cross examined W.W.1, the petitioner workman. After examination of witnesses and after hearing the arguments, the first respondent Labour Court passed an award dated 24.04.2006 in I.D.No.238/2002, reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages.
4.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid award of the first respondent Labour Court insofar as denial of backwages and other attendant benefits.
5.Heard the submissions made on either side.
6.Para 20 of the award deals with the issue relating to backwages and the same is extracted hereunder:
“20.On the side of the respondent, it is urged, the petitioner is running an electrical shop viz Selvi hardwares and electrical at Tiruppur, thereby earning huge profits and hence he is not entitled for a relief of backwages. The petitioner during cross-examination admitted the running of the electrical shop. This factor also would go to show that the petitioner is not entitled for a relief of backwages.”
7.The only reason given in para 20 of the award for declining backwages is that the petitioner is running an electrical shop namely, Selvi Hardwares and Electrical at Tiruppur and was earning huge profits. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner made huge profits in the business and hence, he is not entitled to backwages. But there is no evidence to come to such a conclusion. Except during cross examination of W.W.1 there is nothing about the aforesaid business. The only line available relating to the aforesaid business in the cross examination of W.W.1 reads as follows:
“.......... bry;tp vyf;l;hpfy;!; g{Sthk;gl;oapYs;s fil vd;DilaJ jhd;. $dthp 95Mk; tUlj;jpw;F gpwF ehd; me;jf; filia vLj;J tpahghuk; bra;J tUfpnwd; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y.....”
8.A suggestion was made during the cross examination of the petitioner that he was running a shop from 1995 onwards. The same was denied by the petitioner. However, he admitted that the shop belongs
to him. Nothing more could be drawn from the aforesaid statement made by the petitioner during the cross examination. Certainly, no one would come to the conclusion that the petitioner made huge profits as stated by the Labour Court for declining backwages for the entire period.
9.On the other hand, the petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court in support of this writ petition and has stated in para 9 of the affidavit that the said shop was belonging to his father-in-law and he was working in a petty shop in a small village, earning very little amount. According to him, it was not a gainful employment.
10.In this regard, the relevant passage in para 9 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition is extracted hereunder:
“9.... Secondly, I state that during my unemployment, I had to depend on my father-in-law's support, I was working in his petty shop in a small village, earning very little amount for my family's survival. So, I was not gainfully employed as per the Supreme Court judgment quoted in the award of Labour court.”
11.Though notice was served on the second respondent, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
12.From the aforesaid available materials, I am of the view that the conclusion of the Labour Court relating to denial of backwages is totally perverse and the same is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is interfered with and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent Labour Court to decide about the entitlement of backwages to the petitioner workman. The first respondent Labour Court is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.The Registry is directed to return the records immediately to the first respondent Labour Court without any delay.
14.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
TK
To
The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore.
W.P.NO.37838 OF 2007
KSJ(CO) Eu 23.12.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court's inference that the petitioner earned huge profits from his shop entitled him to be denied backwages was perverse.
Whether the conclusion against backwages was based on recorded evidence.
A. Samiappan
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore
The Management, Sri Chandra Transport
The Management, Sri Sundaram Transport
D. Hariparanthaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
