Allowed

R.Anbu v. The Management of

Madras HC16 Dec 2022WMP/16316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed pending superseding applications, directing the employer to pay full wages to reinstated workmen until their main writ petitions challenging the reinstatement award are disposed of, as the employer could not prove the workmen were gainfully employed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent/Management directed to pay last drawn wages of Rs. 26,613.50 monthly and arrears from 12.11.2021 pending disposal of main writ petitions.

R.Anbu Vs The Management of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

W.M.P. Nos.16316 and 16319 of 2022 in W.P. Nos.722 and 721 of 2022

¶3

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶4

These writ petitions have been filed by the management, challenging the awards of the Labour Court dated 12.11.2021 passed in I.D. Nos.104 and 105 of 2019, under which, the respondents/workmen have been reinstated into service with full backwages and are also entitled for all service benefits since the date of their dismissal i.e. on 05.01.2016. Pending the writ petitions, the respondents/workmen have filed W.M.P. Nos.16316 and 16319 of 2022 under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking payment of their full wages. They have categorically contended that they are not gainfully employed and they are jobless.

¶5

The writ petitioner/management have filed a counter stating that they are not aware as to whether the petitioners/workmen are presently gainfully employed or not. They have also stated that the respective petitioners' last drawn wages was Rs.26,613.50, which is also not disputed by the petitioners/workmen. However, the respondent/writ petitioner/management has sought for

¶6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶7

¶8

liberty to approach this Court for suitable order if they are able to find out later as to whether the petitioners/workmen are gainfully employed.

¶9

As per the provisions of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer is liable to pay the workman during the pendency of any proceeding, challenging the award of the Labour Court, under which the reinstatement of service has been ordered in favour of the workman unless and until they are able to establish that the workman was gainfully employed.

¶10

Admittedly, for the present, the respondent/writ petitioner/management are not able to find out as to whether the petitioners/workmen are gainfully employed or not. Being a statutory provision which enables the workman to seek his full wages pending challenge to the award of the Labour Court passed in his favour, necessarily, the respondent/writ petitioner/management will have to pay the full wages payable to the workmen pending disposal of these writ petitions.

¶11

For the foregoing reasons, W.M.P. Nos.16316 and

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

¶14

16319 of 2022 are allowed as prayed for and the respondent/writ petitioner/management is directed to pay the last drawn wages of respective petitioners at Rs.26,613.50 every month pending disposal of these writ petitions. The respondent/writ petitioner/management is also directed to pay arrears of salary from 12.11.2021 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the respondent/writ petitioner/management, in case on a later date they are able to find out that the petitioners/ workmen are gainfully employed, to approach this Court and seek appropriate orders.

¶15

Post the main writ petitions for final disposal on

14.02.2023.

16.12.2022

mmi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

¶21

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶22

mmi

¶23

W.M.P. Nos.16316 and 16319 of 2022 in W.P. Nos.722 and 721 of 2022

¶24

16.12.2022

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Anbu v. The Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Anbu v. The Management of

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

R.Sivabalan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

T.Ramachandran Vs The Principal Accountant General

B.Lalitha Vs The Secretary to the Government

G. Jayapal Vs The Joint Director of School Education

P.Sundari Vs The Director

N.Selvam Vs The Chief Educational officer