Dismissed

V.Kumaravel v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC29 Jul 2021WP/11479/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging an Industrial Dispute Award. The High Court confirmed the Labour Court's view that the petitioner's resignation was not withdrawn as no evidence supported the claim. The petition is dismissed, but terminal benefits including Provident Fund and Gratuity up to the resignation date are directed to be extended.

What did the court decide?

Terminal benefits, including Provident Fund and Gratuity, are directed to be extended to the petitioner up to the date of acceptance of his resignation on 22.01.2004.

V.Kumaravel Vs the Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

 DATED : 29.07.2021

¶3

 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.NO.11479 OF 2014

¶6

V.Kumaravel

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore – 641 118.

¶10

2. The Management of

¶11

Tamilnadu Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division) Limited, No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 043.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the entire records pursuant to the Award
dated 19.02.2013 on the file of the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.79
of 2007, quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd Respondent
to reinstate the Petitioner with full backwages, continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner:Mr.A.Deivasigamani
For Respondents:Mr.A.Sundaravadanam

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner/employee has come up with this Writ Petition
challenging the Award dated 19.02.2013 passed by the 1st
Respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.79 of 2007 and for a
consequential direction to the 2nd Respondent/Management to
reinstate him with full backwages, continuity of service and all
other attendant benefits.

¶18

2. It is stated by the Petitioner/employee that, he
submitted his resignation on 27.01.2004. However, the
Management was not inclined to accept the same and issued a Show
Cause Notice dated 10.02.2004 alleging absenteeism. Thereafter,
the Petitioner withdrew his resignation vide letter dated
09.12.2005. It is further stated by the Petitioner/employee
that, the 2nd Respondent/Transport Corporation accepted his
resignation vide letter dated 07.08.2004 with certain
conditions. It is the case of the Petitioner/employee that, once
resignation is withdrawn, the employee is deemed to be in
service and he is entitled to other benefits.

¶19

3. Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner, who examined
himself as W.W.1, has stated that, on 07.07.2004, he went to the
Respondent/Transport Corporation and submitted a letter stating
that, he is withdrawing his resignation letter. But, the Labour
Court has held that, there is no pleading to that effect in the
Claim Statement. After taking into consideration the material
documents available on record, the Labour Court came to the
conclusionthat,theletterdated
07.07.2004 said to have been given by the Petitioner/employee
was not at all given to the Management and it was also not
produced before the Labour Court.

¶20

4. The Labour Court, after analysing the Exhibits vide
Ex.W8, Ex.W9 and Ex.W10, came to the conclusion that, the
contention of the Petitioner/employee that, he had submitted a
letter on 07.07.2004 withdrawing his resignation, is not true
and held that, the Petitioner/employee cannot maintain an
Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, as he has resigned from the services of the
Respondent/Transport Corporation.

¶21

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

¶22

5. As rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, the
Petitioner/employee has submitted his resignation and there is
no proof to the effect that, he has withdrawn his resignation.
Hence, this Court does not find any perversity in the Award
dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.79 of 2007
and the same is confirmed.

¶23

6. The Petitioner/employee may be extended the terminal
benefits due to him as per Rules, up to the date of acceptance
of his resignation, i.e. till 22.01.2004. The 2nd
Respondent/Transport Corporation is expected to extend the
benefitofProvidentFundandGratuitytothe
Petitioner/employee upto the date of his resignation and the 2nd
Respondent/Transport Corporation shall decide as to whether the
Petitioner/employee would be entitled to pension, as per the
Rules.

¶24

The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction
and observation. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

(aeb)

¶30

To:

¶31

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore – 641 118.

¶32

2. The Management of Tamilnadu Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division) Limited, No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 043.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, Advocate, S.R.No.36889

¶34

W.P.No.11479 of 2014

¶35

GP(CO)

¶36

RLP(14/09/2021)

¶37

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

V.Kumaravel v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kumaravel v. the Presiding Officer

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

V.Selvaraj Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

The K.461 Sengodagoundenpudur Vs the Labour Court

Tamilnadu Pollution Control Vs the Presiding Officer

The General Manager Vs the Special Deputy

The Management, Vs v.Ganesan, St.No.07CR248

Sairam Vidyalaya Vs Employees state Insurance corporation