M/S.Saravana Selvarathnam Vs the Secretary to Government

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.09.2021

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶4

M/s. Saravana Selvarathnam
rep. by its Proprietor
Mr. Saravana Arul
No.14, Ranganathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶5

 ... Petitioner

¶6

 -vs-

¶7

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
 Labour and Industries Department,
 Fort St. George,
 Chennai – 600 009.

¶8

2. The Presiding Officer,
 II – Additional Labour Court,
 Chennai.

¶9

3. T.Paul Raj

¶10

 ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the Second Respondent, to receive the application for
recall of warrant in I.A.SR.No. 3643 of 2012 in E.P. No. 19 of
2010 in C.P. No. 82 of 2009 pending on the file of the Second

¶12

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

¶13

Respondent and decide the application for recall of warrant on
merits.

¶14

For Petitioner: Mr.D.Abdullah
For First Respondent:No Appearance
For Second Respondent:Court
For Third Respondent: Mr.N.Kamaraj

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard Mr. D.Abdullah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. N.Kamaraj, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent and
perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings
of the parties.

¶17

2. The Third Respondent, who claims to have worked in the
establishment of the Petitioner from the year 1989 onwards, has
raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 234 of 2008 before the
II Additional Labour Court, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as
'the Labour Court' for short) invoking section 2-A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
I.D. Act' for short) claiming that he had been orally terminated
from service with effect from 31.03.2006. According to the
Petitioner, except a private notice received from the Counsel
for the Third Respondent, no notice through Court had been
received in that matter in which an exparte order dated
18.12.2008 came to be passed directing the Petitioner to
reinstate the Third Respondent in service with backwages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The
Third Respondent thereafter filed a Claim Petition in C.P. No.
82 of 2009 before the Labour Court in terms of Section 33-C(2)
of the I.D. Act seeking computation of monetary benefits arising
out of the exparte award dated 18.12.2008 in I.D. No. 234 of
2008 passed by the Labour Court. It is the case of the
Petitioner that even in that proceeding, except private notice
received from the Counsel for the Third Respondent, no notice
through Court had been served on the Petitioner. The Labour
Court by order dated 16.11.2009 in C.P. No. 82 of 2009 directed

¶18

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

¶19

the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,51,250/- to the Third
Respondent. Subsequently, the Third Respondent has commenced
execution proceedings in E.P. No. 19 of 2010 before the Labour
Court for recovering that amount due from the Petitioner under
the order dated 16.11.2009 in C.P. No. 82 of 2009 and on receipt
of notice in that proceeding, the Petitioner has filed
applications for setting aside the exparte award dated
31.12.2008 passed in I.D. No. 234 of 2008 and exparte order
dated 16.11.2009 passed in C.P. No. 82 of 2009 before the Labour
Court, apart from entering appearance in the execution
proceedings. However, it appears that the applications to set
aside those exparte orders were dismissed for default on failure
to serve notice on the Third Respondent, and the Petitioner was
also set exparte in E.P. No. 19 of 2010. Thereafter, the Labour
Court by order dated 23.07.2012 in E.P. No. 19 of 2010 ordered
the arrest and detention of the Petitioner in civil prison. At
that stage, the Petitioner made an application in I.A. 3643 of
2012 in E.P. No. 19 of 2010 before the Labour Court to re-call
the warrant of arrest, but as the same was not taken on file,
the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction
to the Labour Court to receive the same and decide the
application for re-call of warrant on merits and pass further
orders thereon.

¶20

3. Before proceeding further, it requires to be taken
note of the fact that the exparte award dated 18.12.2008 in I.D.
No. 234 of 2008 and exparte order dated 16.11.2009 in C.P. No.
82 of 2009 passed by the Labour Court do not contain any reason
whatsoever. The Labour Court has merely recorded that witness
was examined, exhibits were marked, the claim was proved and the
Third Respondent was entitled to the relief sought. It must, at
once, be pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in
M/s. Meenakshisundaram Textiles -vs- M/s. Valliammal Textiles
Ltd. [(2011) 3 CTC 168] after referring to the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Lata Ghosh -vs- H.K.
Banerjee [(1969) 1 SCC 709], State of Tamil Nadu -vs- S.
Thangavel [(1997) 2 SCC 349], Balraj Taneja -vs- Sunil Madan
[(1999) 8 SCC 396], Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan -vs- Hari Prasad Bhuyan
[(2003) 1 SCC 197], Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya -vs- Anil Panjwani
[(2003) 7 SCC 350], and State of Punjab -vs- Bhag Singh [(2004)
1 SCC 547], has reiterated the settled legal position that even
in the absence of the Defendant contesting in a suit, the Court
is legally bound to give reasons for accepting the claim of the

¶21

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

¶22

Plaintiff and in the absence of such adjudication of the claim,
the decree passed cannot be sustained in law. There is no
discussion with reference to any of the documents produced or
from the deposition of the witness in the orders passed by the
Labour Court as to how the Third Respondent was entitled to the
relief sought as prayed for the mere asking and as such, the
same cannot stand judicial scrutiny. This Court had called for
the records of the Labour Court from which it is seen that
though the Third Respondent had filed affidavit of service of
the private notice served on the Petitioner, no attempt was made
to serve notice through Court in I.D. No. 234 of 2008 and C.P.
No. 82 of 2009. At the same time, it cannot also be lost sight
of the fact that the Petitioner has rather adopted a very casual
and cavalier approach in contesting the proceedings before the
Labour Court.

¶23

4. In this backdrop, Learned Counsel for the Third
Respondent has agreed that the exparte award dated 18.12.2008 in
I.D. No. 234 of 2008 may be set aside and the matter may be
remitted for fresh disposal and he has made an endorsement to
that effect, which is recorded. As directed, Learned Counsel for
the Petitioner has handed over a Demand Draft for the sum of Rs.
25,000/- in favour of the Third Respondent towards costs and
Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent has acknowledged its
receipt.

¶24

5. Having regard to such concordance reached between the
parties to shorten litigation and avert further protraction of
the proceedings in the main dispute, this Court in the exercise
of plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution coupled
with superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, sets aside the exparte award dated 18.12.2008 in
I.D. No. 234 of 2008 passed by the Labour Court and restores
I.D. No. 234 of 2008 to its file and as a consequence thereof,
the exparte order dated 16.11.2009 in C.P. No. 82 of 2009 passed
by the Labour Court is nullified and the orders passed in E.P.
No. 19 of 2010 are re-called and the proceedings in C.P. No. 82
of 2009 and E.P. No. 19 of 2010 shall stand closed. I.D. No. 234
of 2008 shall be listed for the next hearing on 29.09.2021
before the Labour Court. The Petitioner shall peremptorily file
his Counter in I.D. No. 234 of 2008 on that date. The parties or
their respective Counsel shall attend the hearing on the said
date as well as on the subsequent dates to which it is adjourned

¶25

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

¶26

and extend their co-operation for the early disposal of the
matter. After affording full opportunity of hearing to all
parties concerned following the prescribed procedure in
consonance with the principles of natural justice, the Labour
Court shall deal with each of the contentions raised and pass
reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law and
communicate the decision taken to the concerned parties under
written acknowledgment. It shall be ensured that there is
atleast one effective hearing every week showing progress of the
case and monthly reports in that regard shall be sent to the
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court till the matter is finally
disposed.

¶27

In the upshot, the Writ Petition is ordered on the
aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

dm/skr

¶33

To

¶34

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶35

2. The Presiding Officer, II – Additional Labour Court,

¶36

Chennai.

¶37

Copy to

¶38

1. The Registrar (Judicial) Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104.

¶39

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

¶40

2. The Record Keeper,
 E.R. Section,
 High Court, Madras – 104.

¶41

W.P. No. 23728 of 2012

¶42

PA(CO)
RLP(07/09/2021)

¶43

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

M/S.Saravana Selvarathnam v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Saravana Selvarathnam v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sathiyamoorthy Vs Union of India

M/s.Cee Dee Garments Vs The Authorized officer /

L.Charles Vs Central bank of India

Chhavi Pareek Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Doctors Association for Social Equality Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M/S.Aran Kitchen World India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorised Officer