Writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's confirmation of a Labour Court award denying back wages. The court held the award was unsustainable and directed the employer to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh inclusive of interest.
Directed the 2nd respondent to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- inclusive of interest to the appellant within four weeks.
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: 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.2556 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
Duraisamy ... Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P.No.36063 of 2002, dated 16.8.2012 and thereby allow the Writ Appeal.
Prayer in W.P.No.36063 of 2002: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing to call for the records pertaining to the award made in I.D.No.193 of 1998 dated 07.01.2002 in so far as the denial of backwages payable to the petitioner and quash the same and the consequential order directing the 2nd respondent to pay the backwages payable to the petitioner with interest and other costs.
For Appellant : Mr.S.T.Varadha Rajulu For Respondents : R1 - Court Mr. Anand Gopalan - R2 for T.S.Gopalan & Co.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.36063 of 2002, the Writ Petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.
4.1 The appellant was placed under suspension on 11.07.1997 and subsequently was terminated from service on 27.11.1997. The appellant along with two co-employees, viz., Periyasamy and Chelladurai, challenged the order of termination by raising Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.193 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore and the Labour Court, by its Award dated 07.01.2002, directed the 2nd respondent to reinstate the appellant back in service continuity of service. While ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court, did not give any direction to pay back wages for the period from 22.11.1997 to 07.01.2002.
4.2 Challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 36063 of 2002 and the learned Single Judge, by order dated 16.08.2012, confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition.
4.3 Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the above Writ Appeal.
5.Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Management submitted that the quantum of compensation for the period from 22.11.1997 to 07.01.2002 comes to Rs.1,33,000/-. Further, the learned counsel submitted that theThe Labour Court, while ordering reinstatement without back wages, took into consideration the award passed in I.D. No.191 of 1998 filed by the co-employee, viz., Periyasamy, who was also directed to be reinstated without back wages.
With these observations, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
+1cc to Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, Advocate SR.No.66766 +1cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate SR.No.66743
W.A.No.2556 of 2013 and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
GJ(CO) GN(27/12/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to back wages for the period from 22.11.1997 to 07.01.2002.
Whether the Learned Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition should be modified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NAReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Duraisamy
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore
The Manager, Kallur Estate, Soolaiyur Post, Coimbatore District
M. DURAISWAMY
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
