Allowed

The General Manager v. the Special Deputy

Madras HC29 Jul 2021WP/2580/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order rejecting an approval petition for retirement benefits. Relying on the employee's acceptance of specific government guidelines, the court allowed compulsory retirement on the date of dismissal with full retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd Respondent/employee permitted to go on compulsory retirement on the date of dismissal and entitled to eligible retirement benefits as per Rules in force.

The General Manager Vs the Special Deputy — 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.2580 OF 2014

¶6

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram Region, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai.

¶10

R.Sekar ... Respondents

¶11

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 dated 27.12.2012 passed by the 1^st Respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.258 of 2010.

¶12

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

¶13

Petitioner – Transport Corporation has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the 1^st Respondent in Approval Petition No.258 of 2010.

¶14

It is represented by the learned counsel for the Petitioner–Transport Corporation that, the 2^nd Respondent/employee joined the services of the Petitioner– Transport Corporation as a Driver on 08.11.1998 and that, his services were confirmed on 01.12.1999. While the 2^nd Respondent was on duty on 15.07.2009, he committed a fatal accident and after conducting due enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 08.10.2010. He went on to state that, the 2^nd Respondent has completed 10 years 10 months and 7 days of service and he was about to attain superannuation on 31.05.2017.

¶15

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

¶16

It is seen that, the Labour Court rejected the Approval Petition filed by the Petitioner-Transport Corporation on 27.12.2012 on the ground that, there was no witness to the fatal accident committed by the 2^nd Respondent.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Transport Corporation contended that, the decision taken by the 1^st Respondent/Authority is beyond his scope and it is not in consonance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of Lalla Ram vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004. According to the learned counsel, even hearsay evidence is admissible to establish accident cases.

¶18

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent/employee submitted that, the 2^nd Respondent accepted the proposal given by the Government vide Letter No.5370/C2/2021, dated 24.07.2021 in respect of Clause No.2(i) alone. For better appreciation, the said clause is extracted hereunder:

¶19

There were 283 cases, except TNSTC (MDU) placed before the Board for discussion. After detailed deliberations, the following decisions were taken:

¶20

(i) In respect of Ex-employees having required qualifying service for pension under 1998 Scheme to go on compulsory retirement on the date of dismissal and to allow eligible retirement benefits as per Rules in force.

¶21

Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and as the 2^nd Respondent/employee has agreed to accept clause 2(i) of the proposal made by the Government, the 2^nd Respondent/employee is permitted to go on compulsory retirement on the date of dismissal and he is entitled to eligible retirement benefits, such as Gratuity, Pension and Provident Fund, as per the Rules in force.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶24

True Copy

¶25

aeb Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

To: The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai. +1cc to M/S.CSK.Sathish, Advocate, SR.No.37456 +1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.37396 W.P.No.2580 of 2014 PCH(CO) PM(06/09/2021)

¶28

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

The General Manager v. the Special Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. the Special Deputy

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

V.Selvaraj Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

The K.461 Sengodagoundenpudur Vs the Labour Court

Tamilnadu Pollution Control Vs the Presiding Officer

V.Kumaravel Vs the Presiding Officer

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

Sairam Vidyalaya Vs Employees state Insurance corporation