A workman challenged a Labour Court award reinstating him but denying back wages. The High Court found that the employer had offered the job, including a specific route, and the employee had refused. The Court upheld the denial of back wages and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; Labour Court award confirmed; no order as to costs.
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
Date : 22.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.23499 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.28457 of 2004
C.Kumaravel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Management, Lakshmana Travels, (Nagappa Group), 1076, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641 012. 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein pertaining to the award in I.D.No.480/1999 dated 05.09.2002 and quash the award in so far as the award denying back wages and other benefits and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay the back wages and other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For 2nd Respondent : Court For 1st Respondent : Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi ORDER
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the award in I.D.No.480/1999 dated 05.09.2002 and quash the award insofar as the denial of backwages and other benefits to the petitioner.
2.The case of the petitioner workman is that, the petitioner was the employee/conductor of the first respondent/management/employer and his further case is that, he was drawing a sum of Rs.2,250/- as a last drawn wage. While so, from 27.12.1997 he was denied the job and in this regard, since there has been a conciliation, which was ended in failure, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which was
taken on record in I.D.No.480 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, where, after completing the trial, taking into account the evidence adduced, the Labour Court by the impugned award dated 05.09.2002, has directed the first respondent/management to reinstate the petitioner, however denied the backwages.
3.Aggrieved over the said denial of backwags, the petitioner challenging the award dated 05.09.2002 of the Labour Court, has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4.Heard Mr.S.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, the petitioner even though reported for duty after 27.12.1997, he was not given the duty, therefore, abruptly there was clear denial of work, which only necessitated the petitioner to raise the industrial dispute before the Labour Court. Even during the pendency of the ID, though it was claimed on behalf of the first respondent/management that, they are ready and willing to provide the job whenever the petitioner go to the first respondent employer either they would refuse to give the job or they compelled the petitioner to go in a particular route i.e. Route No.28, which is only to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the said offer made by the respondent employer to press the petitioner into service in Route No.28, cannot be construed as an act in good gesture on the part of the employer to give to the petitioner and therefore, based on which, the claim of the petitioner made before the Labour Court to get reinstatement with backwages cannot be construed as if that the petitioner is not entitled to get the backwages, because, he has not been given duty and only the offer was made by the employer by pressing him into Route No.28.
5.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the appreciation of evidence made by the Labour Court through the impugned order is not in proper perspective, therefore, interference is called for. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that, in order to justify the bona fide on the part of the employer even after passing the award, the petitioner was not reinstated despite his several efforts made in this regard and whenever he reports to the respondent employer, he was not given the job. Therefore, it shows that, only for the sake of creating documents, they go on issuing letters offering the job given to the petitioner, in response to the same, if the petitioner reported for duty, no duty was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the subsequent events taken place pursuant to the impugned award also shall be taken into account, he contended.
6.Per contra, Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent/management would submit that, at no point of time the petitioner was denied the job and even on 27.12.1997 the job was not denied to the petitioner, in fact the petitioner had not issued ticket for a sum of Rs.1.50 to a particular passenger and that was found at the time of inspection and thereafter expecting any disciplinary action at the hands of the employer, the petitioner himself has left the job, and after 27.12.1997, he has not returned to join duty. Straight away he cannot go to the Labour Court to raise the industrial dispute. Even during the pendency of the industrial dispute, the employer had offered so many times and this has been evidenced before the Labour Court, where, the very petitioner himself deposed in his cross examination that, he was given job to press into service in Route No.28, since he did not accept the Route No.28, he did not join Route No.28. Also, the documents filed in support of the workman petitioner i.e. Exs.P.4, P.6 and P.8 filed on behalf of the petitioner workman also had been taken into account by the Labour Court and ultimately they have concluded that, at no point of time, the job was denied to the petitioner by the first respondent/employer, therefore, by considering the same in proper perspective by the Labour Court, it has rightly denied the backwages.
7.The learned counsel for the first respondent would also submit that, even after passing the award, the first respondent/management on 12.08.2006 in fact sent a letter offering the job i.e. reinstatement, as directed by the Labour Court, by registered post and the same was received by the petitioner on 23.08.2006, despite the same, the petitioner was not turned for duty and he has never joined in the duty, which was offered to him by way of reinstatement, as directed by the Labour Court. Therefore, after the Labour Court award, which is impugned herein, also, continuously the first respondent/employer was offering the job, to which the petitioner alone has not chosen to accept or to join duty, therefore, such a blame cannot be put against the first respondent/management, she contended.
8.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9.The only question is whether the denial of backwages to the petitioner, as has been awarded by the Labour Court through the impugned order, is justifiable or not.
10.The Labour Court, in fact, has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner, which the management also has accepted, as admittedly there has been no appeal against the impugned award insofar as the part of the order passed by the Labour Court for
reinstatement of the petitioner.
11.Insofar as the denial of backwages is concerned, there has been a justification on the part of the Labour Court as the issue has been threadbare discussed by the Labour Court and the relevant portion of the discussion and conclusion reached by the Labour Court in the impugned award are extracted herein for easy reference.
"9/eph;thfj;jpd; jug;gpy; kDjhuUf;F tHpj;jlk; vz; 28y; gzp mspf;fg;gl;ljhft[k;. kDjhuh; gzpf;F M$uhf ntz;bkd;W Twp gy foj';fs; vGjg;gl;ljhft[k;. mjd; mog;gilapYk; kDjhuh; gzpf;F tutpy;iy vd;Wk;. kDjhuh; rl;ltpnuhjkhf Mjhak; njl ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhf ,e;j kDit jhf;fy; bra;jpUg;gjhf Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuh; mtUila FWf;Ftprhuizapy; lt[d; g!; U:l;/be/28y; jdf;F ntiy bfhLj;jhy; jhd; ntiyf;F nghfkhl;nld; vd;Wk;. me;j tHpj;jlk; gw;wp jdf;F vJt[k; bjhpahJ vd;Wk;. tHpj;jlk; 28y; jdf;F gzp bfhLf;fg;gl;ljhft[k;. jhd; gzpf;F nghftpy;iy vd;Wk;. me;j tHpj;jlj;jpy; nghdhy; jd; kPJ bgha;ahd tHf;F nghl;LtpLthh;fs; vd;Wk;. Mdhy; elj;Jeh; chpkk; ,Ue;jhy; ve;j tHpj;jlj;jpy; nghl;lhYk; gzpf;F nghfntz;Lbkd;Wk; Twpa[s;shh;/ vdnt eph;thfk; kDjhuUf;F gzp bfhLj;Js;sJ vd;gJk;. kDjhuh; jhd; me;j tHpj;jlj;jpy; gzpf;F bry;yhky; ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;gJk; bjhpfpd;wJ/ nkYk; kDjhuh; mtUila FWf;Ftprhuizapy; eph;thfk; jdf;F gzkhf bfhLj;jhy; mij Vw;Wf; bfhs;tjhft[k; Twpa[s;shh;/ vdnt nkw;go Tw;iw nehf;Fk;nghJ kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jplkpUe;J gzj;ij vjph;g;ghh;j;Js;shh; vd;gJ bjhpfpd;wJ/
10/ eph;thfk; bjhHpyhsh; mYtyfj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;Fk; vjpUiuapYk;. ,e;j bjhHpw;jfuhwpy; jhf;fy; bra;j vjpUiuapYk; kDjhuUf;F gzp bfhLg;gjhf jhd; Twpa[s;sJ/ nkYk; tHf;F epYitapy; ,Uf;Fk; rkaj;jpy; jlk; vz; 28y; kDjhuUf;F gzp bfhLf;ft[k; Kd; te;Js;sJ/ Mdhy; kDjhuh; jhd; me;j tHpj;jlk; jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W Twp gzpf;F bry;yhky; ,Ue;Js;shh;/ nkYk;. bjh/rh/M/4. bjh/rh/M/6. bjh/rh/M/8 Mfpa Mtz';fis nehf;Fk;nghJ eph;thfk; kDjhuUf;F ntiy bfhLg;gjhf jhd; Twpa[s;sJ/ Mdhy; kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jpw;F gzpf;F bry;yhky; ,Ue;Js;shh;/ vdnt eph;thfk; kDjhuUf;F kPz;Lk; gzp bfhLf;f ntz;Lbkd;Wk;. gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; kw;w rYiffs; tH';f njitapy;iy vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;fpnwd;/
,Wjpapy; ,e;j bjhHpw;jfuhwpy; vjph;kDjhuh; kDjhuUf;F kPz;Lk; gzp tHf;F ntz;Lbkd;Wk;. gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; kw;w rYiffs; tH';f njitapy;iy vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;ag;gl;L jPh;tk; tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j;bjhif vJt[kpy;iy/ "
12.From the discussion as has been quoted above, the Labour Court has found factually that, the petitioner was offered the job even during the pendency of the industrial dispute and he has been asked to take the bus route of 28. However, it was only the petitioner who refused to take the route and he did not want to serve in that route. In this context, it can be taken note of the fact that, the petitioner cannot choose that, he should be pressed into service in a particular bus route. If it has been decided by the management and if any peculiar disadvantage attached to the particular route, that can be brought to the notice of the management, but no such peculiar disadvantage in pressing into service in that particular bus route, since has not been brought to the notice of the respondent and that is not the case of the petitioner also, in this regard, even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that, only in order to harass the petitioner, he had been pressed into service in Route No.28, in what way that would be harassment to the petitioner, has not been explained.
13.Be that as it may, insofar as the offering of the job is concerned, it has been proved beyond doubt orally as well as by the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the Management before the Labour Court, which has been thoroughly discussed by the Labour Court in the impugned award at para 9 and 10 which has been already extracted herein above.
14.In view of the said reasons discussed above, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be found fault with that, there is perversity attached with the order given by the Labour Court. In fact, it has been made based on the evidences adduced even on behalf of the petitioner/employee himself. Therefore, there is every justification on the part of the Labour Court to deny the backwages.
15.Insofar as the subsequent event taken place after the impugned award is concerned, it is the allegation and counter allegation made by the petitioner as well as the first respondent/management. However, the first respondent/management is able to show that, there has been a written offer sent through registered post on 12.08.2006 to offer the job, which offer though has been received by the petitioner on 23.08.2006, he seems to have not responded to the same.
16.Therefore, in that circumstances, what shall be the benefit the petitioner can get it for alleged non denial of the job or reinstatement, as directed by the Labour Court, after the Labour Court award, it is for the petitioner to work out such remedy, which he wants to get it before the concerned forum in the manner known to law.
17.However, the said aspect i.e., post award period cannot detain this Court from deciding the veracity and sustainability of the order passed by the Labour Court insofar as the denial of backwages, as has been challenged in this writ petition.
18.For the aforesaid reason, this Court feels that, the Labour Court has considered the issue in proper perspective, of course, based on the evidence and therefore, the denial of backwages to the petitioner can very well be accepted. Hence, this Court feel that, no interference is called for in the said award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly, the said award is confirmed and hence the writ petition fails accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Sgl
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
+1cc to Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No. 42584
+1cc to Mr.A.L.Ganthimathi, Advocate, S.R.No. 42547
W.P.No.23499 of 2004
SMI(CO)
GN(19/02/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award denying back wages to a reinstated workman.
Whether the denial of back wages is justified when the employer offered the job and the employee refused the specific route assigned.
Whether the writ petition challenging the denial of back wages should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Kumaravel
The Management, Lakshmana Travels, (Nagappa Group)
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore
R.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
