Disposed

The Management of Abt Parcel v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC16 Sept 2021WP/16665/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenging a Labour Court Award was disposed of after recording a Joint Memo of Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The parties resolved the back wages claim through a lump sum payment, ending the litigation.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of; the Joint Memo of Settlement dated 15.09.2021 forms part of the order. No costs.

The Management of Abt Parcel Vs the Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved onPronounced on
31.07.202116.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.16665 of 2004

¶6

The Management of ABT parcel service,

¶7

101 Mount Road,

¶8

Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶9

represented by its General Manager-Personnel.

¶10

.... Petitioner
vs.

¶11

1. The Presiding Officer,
 I Additional Labour Court,

¶12

 Chennai.

¶13

2. P.Raju.... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call
for the records of the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.553 of 1994 dated
23.12.2003 and quash the same.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Award
of the 1st Respondent dated 23.12.2003, passed in I.D.No.553 of
1994, by which, the Employee / 2nd Respondent was directed to be
reinstated with continuity of service, with 50% of back wages

¶17

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

¶18

and all other attendant benefits.

¶19

2. This Court, after hearing the submissions on either
side in extenso, has reserved the case for judgment on 31.07.2021
and after conclusion of their arguments on the said date, learned
counsel for the parties also stated that settlement talks are
going on between the Management and the Workman.

¶20

3. Now, learned counsel on either side has produced a
Joint Memo dated 15.09.2021 on behalf of parties, stating the
Parties have arrived at a Settlement under Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and recording the said Settlement,
the Writ Petition may be disposed of. The terms of the 18(1)
Settlement are extracted hereunder:

¶21

“MEMORANDAM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED UNDER SECTION 18(1)

¶22

OF

¶23

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

¶24

Parties to the Settlement : The Management of - ABT Parcel
 Service Coimbatore
AND
P.Raju
Representing Employer : Saravanabavanandan S.A,
 S/o.Mr.R.A.Angannan
 Chief Human Resources Officer,
 ABT Parcel Service,
 180, Race Course Road,
 Coimbatore – 641 018
Representing Workman : P.Raju
 44, Ranganathan Maistry Lane,
 Sardar Patel Road,
 Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
Number and broad description: 1 Workman (one workman only)
of workman covered by
the settlement
Short Recital

¶25

Workman P.Raju was proceeded with by way of
Disciplinary Action for certain acts of misconduct
which was proved in the enquiry held for the purpose.
On 28.12.1993 he was dismissed. He raised ID No 553 of

¶26

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

¶27

1994 in Labour Court, Chennai claiming relief of
reinstatement. By its award dated 23.12.2003, the
Labour Court, set aside the order of dismissal and
directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. On
18.08.2004, the Workman was reinstated. On 11.10.2018,
he reached the age of superannuation. The Management
challenged the award of the Labour Court in so far as
it relates to back wages. The Writ Petition was
admitted on 18.06.2004. Subsequently, the workmen
worked till the date of his superannuation. As regards
the relief of back wages, both parties felt that
consensus could be arrived as so as to put an end to
the litigation. The Management agreed to pay a lumpsum
amount of Rs.60,000/- And the workman also agreed to
receive the said amount towards the relief of back
wages. On the aforesaid understanding, the settlement
was arrived at on the following terms :

¶28

1. Workman Thiru P.Raju was reinstated pursuant to

¶29

the award of the Labour Court dated 23.12.2003 in ID No 553 of 1994 and after reinstatement, he served till the age of superannuation and also received all his terminal benefits.

¶30

2. Regarding the relief of back wages which was also challenged in the Writ Petition, it is agreed between the parties that an adhoc amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be paid to the workman in full and final settlement of all his claims against the Management.

¶31

3. The Petitioner is not pressing for any relief in terms of the award dated 23.12.2003 in ID No 553 of 1994.

¶32

4. It is further agreed by both the parties that a copy of this Settlement would be filed before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.16665 of 2004 and pray for an order in terms of the settlement.

¶33

5. With this Settlement, neither party shall have any other claim against the other.

¶34

Dated at Chennai on this 19^th day of August 2021.

¶35

Representing the Management Representing the Workman”

¶36

4. In view of the above submissions and recording the
Joint Memo of Settlement dated 15.09.2021, this Writ Petition is

¶37

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

¶38

disposed of. The Joint Memo of Settlement dated 15.09.2021 shall
form part of this order. No costs.

¶39

Enclosed Xerox Copy of Joint Compromise

¶40

 Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

arr/ar

¶44

To:

¶45

The Presiding Officer,

¶46

I Additional Labour Court,

¶47

Chennai.

¶48

+1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate, S.R.No.47379

¶49

+1cc to Mr.K.Elango, Advocate, S.R.No.47419

¶50

W.P.No.16635 of 2004

¶51

NR(CO)

¶52

SB(27/10/2021)

¶53

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

The Management of Abt Parcel v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Abt Parcel 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

The Regional Manager Vs The Presiding Officer

The General Manager Vs the Central Government

The Authorized officer Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner and Recovery officer

The General Manager, Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management of Abt Parcel Vs the Presiding Officer

Subramaniyan, Vs the Management