Allowed

The Management v. B.R.Chandrasekaran

Madras HC9 Jul 2021WP/11456/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order directing payment of additional salary to a retired workman. The Court held that the order was arbitrary and perverse as it ignored evidence showing the employee had already received wages for the disputed period, setting aside the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued; order passed by the second respondent on 02.01.2017 in C.P.No.42/2016 is set aside.

The Management Vs B.R.Chandrasekaran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.07.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.11456 of 2017 and WMP No.12437 of 2017

¶6

The Management, Represented by its The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Vellore Region, Ranganathapuram, Vellore.

¶7

... Petitioner -vs-

¶8

B.R.Chandrasekaran

¶9

The Presiding Officer, Principal Additional Labour Court, Vellore. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the order passed by the second respondent in C.P.No.42/2016 dated 02.01.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.T.P.Prabhakaran (R1)

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent in C.P.No.42/2016 dated 02.01.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Transport Corporation and the first respondent is a Workman, who attained the age of Superannuation on 31.05.2015. The Workman filed C.P.No.42 of 2016, before the Labour Court, Vellore seeking payment of salary for a period from 21.05.2015 to 31.05.2015, which was not paid to him by the Management. In the said Computation Petition, the Management filed a detailed counter, stating that on account of computerization of salary particulars, the salary for the period from 01.12.1985 to 31.12.1985 was computed and eleven days' salary for the period between 21.05.2015 and 31.05.2015 was duly paid to all the employees, including the 1^st Respondent herein. However, the second respondent allowed the C.P.No.42 of 2016, directing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

payment of Rs.20,000/- to the Workman herein as salary payable for 11 days for the period from 21.05.2015 to 31.05.2015. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶16

According to the Workman, the salary for 11 days was not paid and in any event, the amount already paid cannot be adjusted and recovered after retirement. The issue to be decided is whether there was any non-consideration of payment of 11 days wages to the first respondent, while settling the retirement benefits. The amount claimed by the Workman was for 11 days i.e., from 21.05.2015 to 31.05.2015.

¶17

Heard both sides. Perused the material available on

¶18

record.

¶19

It is not in dispute that the first respondent / Workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. It is the case of the Management that the salary is being disbursed to all the employees on the 1^st of every month and the method of payment of salary has been computerized and in that process, in the month of December, 1986 itself, the Workman was paid 11 days wages.

¶20

Admittedly, the evidence, which was produced before the Labour Court more particularly Exs.R1 and R2, would make it clear that the employee was paid wages for 11 days claimed by him and without considering those documents, the Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the salary for the disputed period had not been drawn and paid to the Workman and held that the Workman is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for 11 days and the said Order is not justified and has no legs to stand.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the second respondent / Labour Court is perverse and arbitrary in nature, and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the second respondent dated 02.01.2017 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

-s/d-

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

arr/ar

¶27

¶28

The Presiding Officer, Principal Additional Labour Court, Vellore.

¶29

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

¶30

Copy to :-

¶31

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Vellore Region, Ranganathapuram, Vellore.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Advocate, SR.No.32552 +1cc to Mr.T.P.Prabhakaran, Advocate, SR.No.32468

¶33

W.P.No.11456 of 2017

¶34

MG(CO) CT (09/09/2021)

¶35

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

The Management v. B.R.Chandrasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. B.R.Chandrasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Chemplast Vs the Presiding Officer

S.Venkatesan Vs the Management of the Garrison

M. Joseph Sudersanam Vs the Management of the

M/s.Pulliccar Mills ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

The Regional Provident Fund Vs M/S.S&S Industries and

V.Kumar Vs The General Manager