Allowed

Tirunelveli District Central v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC23 Jul 2021WP/30139/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madras High Court reviewed a Labour Court order regarding salary arrears and interest payable to a suspended workman. The Court found no perversity in the finding but reduced the substantial interest burden on the Cooperative Bank.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the amount payable together with interest was rounded off to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid within two months.

Tirunelveli District Central Vs the Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.NO.30139 OF 2003
AND
 WMP.NO.36819 OF 2003

¶6

Tirunelveli District Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Co-operative Bank,
Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 003.
Rep.by its Managing Director /
Special Officer.

¶7

 ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1. The Presiding Officer
 Labour Court,
 Tirunelveli.
2. T.Subramanian

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to
call for the records of the 1strespondent made in
C.P.No.119/1997 dated 07.02.2003 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.Kaaviya Silambanan
For Respondents : No appearance

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order
dated 07.02.2003 passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.No.119 of
1997.

¶14

2. According to the Workman / 2nd Respondent herein,
based on the award in I.D.No.190 of 85 dated 14.05.1991, he has
to be placed in an appropriate position and paid salary from

¶15

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

¶16

01.01.1989 on the basis of the agreement between the parties.
The award was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.17380 of 2019
and even though a Writ Appeal has been preferred, in the
interregnum period, the award was implemented vide proceedings
dated 19.03.1997, which was marked as Ex.P.4.

¶17

3. The contention of the Management is that the Workman
was under suspension from 25.08.1987 to 05.12.1989 and he is not
entitled to any benefits during the period of suspension. The
Management was asked to produce the entire file, which was
marked as Ex.R1 series and that an undertaking was given by the
delinquent that he would not claim the amount from the
Management. The Labour Court held that even though the
undertaking given by the delinquent appears to be a stumbling
block, a clean chit has been given by the Management vide EX.P.4
and Special Officer of the Bank was directed to prepare bills
for arrears from 01.01.1989 payable to the beneficiaries in
I.D.No.190/85 mentioned supra. Therefore, the contention of
estoppal made by the Bank was rejected, stating that the burden
was shifted to the Bank, in the light of the evidence produced
before the Labour Court. The Labour Court computed the amount at
Rs.25,764/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
the petition till this date of the order and the rate of
interest has been fixed at 6% from the date of the order till
the actual disbursement, along with a cost of Rs.200/-.

¶18

4. In fine, I find that there is no perversity in the
order of the Labour Court. Since the Writ Petitioner is a
Cooperative Bank, the interest foisted on them, that too, in the
present pandemic situation, in my view, is high and in order to
give quietus to the matter, the amount payable together with
interest is rounded off to Rs.50,000/-in toto. The amount shall
be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, failing which, the interest awarded by
the Labour Court will stand automatically restored.

¶19

With the above observation and direction, this Writ
Petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

dpq

¶25

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

¶26

To

¶27

The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.

¶28

W.P.No.30139 of 2003

¶29

KSM(CO)
RLP(01/11/2021)

¶30

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

Tirunelveli District Central v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirunelveli District Central 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.Manoharan Vs the Management of

The Management Vs M.G. Rajendran

S. Mohan Vs the Addl. Registrar of Trade

Krishnammal, Vs the Corporation of Chennai

B.Krishnamoorthy,S/o.Boorasamy Vs The Secretary to Government

Tamil Nadu Agricultural Vs Assistant Provident Fund