Dismissed

Tamilnadu State Transport v. the President Officer

Madras HC6 Jul 2021WP/32837/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Labour Court award reinstating a deceased workman without backwages was dismissed. The court held that interference was unwarranted as reinstatement had already occurred. Management was directed to pay dues and benefits to the legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/Management to pay monetary dues and benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased Workman within three months.

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the President Officer — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.32837 of 2004 and W.M.P.Nos.39738 of 2004 and 6 of 2005

¶6

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-636 007 ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

¶9

P.Govindarajan (Deceased)

¶10

Tmt.Santhiya

¶11

G.Sinduja

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(R3 & R4 substituted as LRs. of deceased R2 by order dated 06.07.2021)

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1^st Respondent in I.D.No.372 of 2000 dated 13.05.2003 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Raghu

¶16

For R2 & R3 : Mr.V.Ajay Khose

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the Award of the 1^st Respondent dated 13.05.2013 passed in I.D.No.372 of 2000, in and by which, the 2^nd Respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and other benefits, but without backwages.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶20

It is represented by Mr.V.Ajay Khose, learned counsel appearing for the Workman that the Workman, during pendency of this Writ Petition had passed away on 14.10.2013 and a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Miscellaneous Petition in W.M.P.No.32471 of 2019 for

¶21

substitution of the legalheirs of the deceased has been filed. The said petition has been ordered today and the legalheirs were brought on record.

¶22

According to the Petitioner / Management, the Workman's past record was bad and the Labour Court, without considering his antecedents, erroneously interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service, by modifying the punishment into the one, as extracted below:

¶23

“10///kDjhuh; mof;fo gzpf;F tuhky; ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;gJ bjhpfpwJ/ fz;zhoia nrjk; Vw;gLj;jpajw;fhft[k;. kw;w tiff;fhft[k; gyKiw xG';F eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 1995 Kjy; 1997 tiu gyKiw Kd; mikjpapd;wp gzpf;F tuhky; ,Ue;J eltof;if vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt kDjhuUila Kd; elj;ij nkhrkhf , Ue;Js;sJ/ ,Ue;jnghjpYk; ,t;tHf;fhdJ tpgj;J rk;ge;jkhf Vw;gl;ljhFk;/ ftdf;Fiwthf bray;gl;l xl;LdUf;F fLikahd jz;lid tH';fntz;Lk; vd;gJ cz;ikjhd;/ ,e;j tpgj;jpw;F kDjhuh;jhd; KG fhuzk; vd;W brhy;y KoahJ/ rk;gtj;ij nehpy; ghh;j;j fhl;rpfs; vtUk; tprhhpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ tpgj;ij jtph;f;f kDjhuh; Kaw;rp vLj;Js;shh; vd;gjhy; mtUila jz;lidapy; khw;wk; bra;ayhk; vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ/ vdnt kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl;l jz;lid epahakhdjy;y vd Kot[ bra;J. kDjhuUf;F gpd;rk;gsk; ,y;yhky;. Mdhy; gzpj;bjhlh;r;rp. kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffSld; kPz;Lk; ntiy mspf;fyhk; vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot [ bra;fpwJ/”

¶24

Consequent to the said Award, the Workman was reinstated in service and the Management has preferred the present appeal, challenging the Award.

¶25

It is seen that the Workman had been reinstated in service as early as on 16.05.2005 and that the Workman also passed away during pendency of this Writ petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court, even though another view is possible. Once the Workman has been reinstated in service, he must be paid on par with his counter parts and he should be extended all the benefits of settlement. On a reading of the Award of the Labour Court, this Court found that the Labour Court has rendered a finding of fact, which cannot be blindly reappreciated and interfered with.

¶26

For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Since the Workman had already expired and his legalheirs were also brought on record, the monetary benefits due to the Workman till his demise on par with the counter part, terminal benefits, including family pension (if applicable) shall be extended by the Petitioner / Management https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the legalheirs of the deceased Workman, along with arrears,

¶27

if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC)

¶29

//True copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

To: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.D.Raghu, Advocate SR.No.31543

¶34

+1cc to Mr.V.Ajay Khose, Advocate SR.No.31563

¶35

W.P.No.32837 of 2004

¶36

RP(CO) GMY(06/08/2021)

¶37

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

Tamilnadu State Transport v. the President Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu State Transport v. the President Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Plr Textiles Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Puthiya Jananayaga Vs Government of Tamilnadu

James Robson Vs The Labour Commissioner

Chief Conservator of Forests, Vs P.Pachayapillai

Kongunadu Arts and Vs The Employees state Insurance Corporation

St.Josephs matriculation Vs the Government of