Allowed

P.Singaravelan, v. the Management of

Madras HC5 Dec 2018WP(MD)/214/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to reinstate a dismissed railway/ticket conductor with continuity of service. While the petitioner waived the wage differential paid post-November 2017, the court ordered the respondent to pay wages from December 2017 onwards and contribute to the pension trust.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement in service within four weeks; payment of wages from December 2017 until reinstatement; employer's contribution to pension trust; no claim for wage difference up to November 2017.

P.Singaravelan, Vs the Management of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.12.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶3

WP(MD)No.214 of 2016

¶4

P.Singaravelan ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Kumbakonam Region, Rep.by its General Manager, Kumbakonam. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages from 21.02.2003 and all other attendant benefits as per order of the Authority dated 10.01.2016 in Approval Application No.425/03 passed U/s 33(2) (b) of the I.D Act as upheld by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam for Mr.RM.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the respondent corporation. It was alleged that he committed misappropriation. Therefore, charge memo was issued and domestic enquiry was conducted. He was finally dismissed from service by order dated 02.02.2003. The management filed a petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval. The Joint Commissioner of Labour declined to grant approval. The application seeking approval filed by the management was dismissed on 10.01.2006. The management unsuccessfully challenged the same in WP (MD)No.28399 of 2007. Even though the writ petition filed by the management suffered a dismissal, the management did not reinstate the petitioner herein in service. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed for reinstatement with continuity of service and all other benefits.

¶11

2.It is seen that till November 2017, the petitioner herein was paid his last drawn wages. It also appears that in November 2017, a settlement was entered into between the petitioner herein https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the respondent management. Taking note of the same, this Court passes the following order :

¶12

¶13

(i)The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

(ii)The petitioner has been paid his last drawn wages till November, 2017. He shall not make any claim for difference in wages. In fact, this aspect of the matter has already been accepted by the petitioner. The management agrees to pay employer's contribution for the non employment period to the pension trust.

¶15

(iii)The management is directed to pay last drawn wages from December 2017 till his reinstatement which shall be not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

(iv)The petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and other notional benefits. This order has been passed based on the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was paid his last drawn wages till November 2017. In any event, this payment is only a matter of record. If it emerges that the last drawn wages was stopped much earlier, it goes without saying that the management shall pay arrears to the petitioner from the date when it was stopped till the reinstatement which shall be not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

3.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶20

¶21

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Kumbakonam Region, Kumbakonam.

¶22

+1CC to Mr.R.M.Sivakumar, Advocate, SR.No.99062 +1CC to Mr.D.Sivaraman, Advocate, SR.No.98987

¶23

WP(MD)No.214 of 2016

¶24

SKM

¶25

ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 1/07.12.2018/2P/4C

¶26

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

P.Singaravelan, v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Singaravelan, v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Britha Vs S. Magesh

Subramani Vs the Inspector of Police

The Managment Vs the Presiding Officer

Tvl.Vimal Agency, Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

Tvl.Sukra Bags & Belts, Vs the Appellate Deputy

Kodaikanal Christian College Vs Asst. Provident Fund