Partly allowed

The Management v. The Special Deputy

Madras HC27 Jan 2022WP/20927/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sustained the authority's order rejecting an approval petition. The court directed the petitioner-employer to pay 50% of back wages to the reinstated employee along with continuity of service and other benefits, while EPF contributions are borne by the employee.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to disburse 50% of total back wages, continuity of service, and attendant benefits within eight weeks; EPF borne by respondent.

The Management Vs The Special Deputy — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.20927 of 2017 and W.M.P Nos.21812 of 2017 and 29395 of 2019

¶6

The Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour D.M.S Complex, IV Floor

¶10

Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶11

H.Vazeer ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in A.P No.75 of 2014 dated 13.03.2017 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan for R1 Government Advocate Mr. S.T.Varadarajulu for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

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

¶17

2.The second respondent herein was terminated from service on 03.11.2011, based on charges of unauthorized absence. The petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, came to be rejected by the 1^st respondent/Authority on 13.03.2017. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶18

3.Today when the matter was called, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner /Corporation submitted that the Management have reinstated the petitioner back into service on 14.11.2018 and since his service records revealed 24 earlier punishments suffered by him including delinquencies of unauthorized absences, the back wages payable to the 2^nd respondent may be reduced.

¶19

4.By taking into account the fact that the petitioner was punished on 24 previous occasions, this court is of the view that if back wages for the non-employment period be reduced to 50%, the ends of justice could be secured. However, since the authority have rejected the approval petition of the 2^nd respondent herein, he would entitled to other service and monetary benefits.

¶20

5.In the light of the above observations, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is sustained. Consequently, the petitioner shall disburse 50% of the total backwages payable to the 2^nd respondent herein, together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Employees Provident Fund contribution shall be borne by the 2^nd respondent, which amount can be adjusted from and out of the back wages ordered in this Writ Petition.

¶21

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Digit)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

vkr

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour D.M.S Complex, IV Floor Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, Advocate, S.R.No.4981

¶30

+1cc to Mr.M.Chidambaram, Advocate, S.R.No.5278

¶31

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.5677

¶32

W.P.No.20927 of 2017 and W.M.P Nos.21812 of 2017 and 29395 of 2019

¶33

MT(CO) SU(18/02/2022)

¶34

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

The Management v. The Special Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anburaj Vs The Inspector of Police

N.Suresh - P.C. No.43197 Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Mohan Vs State of Tamilnadu

The Director Vs the Presiding Officer

R.Ramesh H/C.No.932295736 Vs Union of India, Rep by its

The Management Vs The Special Deputy