Allowed

M.Patrick v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC12 Apr 2022WP/29189/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a Labour Court award that granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The court held that since the termination was illegal, reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service was the normal rule. The petitioner, who had since retired, was directed to receive retirement benefits with continuity of service credits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award quashed; petitioner directed to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity of service; respondent to disburse retirement benefits with continuity credits.

M.Patrick Vs the Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.NO.29189 OF 2013

M.Patrick

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court Chennai.

¶10

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

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records from the first respondent relating to the impugned award dated 28.09.2012 in I.D.No.815 of 2001 and quash only that portion of the award denying reinstatement with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits and awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- of lieu of reinstatement and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant service benefits and award cost.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.K.Murthy for respondent 2 R1 - Court

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner herein, while serving as an Assistant Tradesman in the second respondent Corporation, was levelled with charges of unauthorised absence through a charge memo dated 05.04.1997 alleging that the petitioner was unauthorisedly

¶16

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

¶17

absent from 13.03.1997 onwards. Not being satisfied with the petitioner's explanation to the charge memo, a domestic enquiry was conducted and by an order dated 19.01.1999, the petitioner's services were terminated.

¶18

A challenge to the termination order before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.815 of 2001 was partially allowed by directing the second respondent Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakh as compensation, in lieu of reinstatement into service. Aggrieved against this award, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

It is settled proposition that the Labour Court would be well within its powers to order compensation in lieu of reinstatement in cases where the Court is of the view that reinstatement could not be justified. However, such order of compensation should be based on justifiable grounds and the Labour Court is required to render its findings as to why compensation should be ordered instead of reinstatement. This proposition has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL [2015 AIR (SC) 357], in the following manner:

¶20

"3. It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (I) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or (iv) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasised is that there may be appropriate case on facts which may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation."

¶21

By applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, the Labour Court is required to substantiate as to why the Court was of the view that compensation should be ordered in lieu of reinstatement. In the instant case, though the Labour Court had rendered findings stating that the materials on record and the evidence of the parties disclose that the petitioner had submitted a leave letter for the absence period along with a medical certificate and therefore, the order of dismissal was

¶22

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

¶23

in-appropriate and had further found that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge of misconduct of the petitioner, the Labour Court had set aside the dismissal order, however had directed to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakh in lieu of reinstatement in service, without any discussion at all. Such a direction for payment of compensation is opposed to the legal proposition as held in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul (supra).

¶24

In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) [2013 (10) SCC 324], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

¶25

“38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.

¶26

38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and / or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.”

¶27

Likewise, in Raj Kumar Dixit v. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar [2015 (9) SCC 345], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that once the termination is held to be bad in law, compensation in lieu of reinstatement is impermissible and that such a workman will be entitled to all the benefits. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

¶28

"19. Awarding compensation to an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the workman by the High Court in lieu of reinstatement of the appellant-workman along with 50% back wages is once again contrary to the well settled principles of law as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases, particularly, the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, wherein the Constitution Bench held that the order of termination

¶29

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

¶30

simpliciter has to be held bad in law for noncompliance of the mandatory requirements provided under the Act and further held that the order of termination will be rendered void-ab-initio in law and therefore, the workman is entitled for all benefits for which he is legally entitled to in law.

¶31

The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement of the appellant- workman in his post along with 50% back wages which is erroneous in law as the High Court has not noticed the fact that the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication on the points of dispute referred to it. Since, there was non-compliance of the mandatory requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act by the respondent- firm at the time of passing an order of termination against the appellant-workman, therefore, the same has been held to be bad in law and as such it should have awarded full back wages to the workman from the date of termination till the date of passing the Award unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period which fact is neither pleaded nor proved before the Labour Court."

¶32

By applying the aforesaid ratio, the Labour Court ought to have ordered for reinstatement in service together with full backwages and continuity of service since the termination order was found to be illegal. In the absence of any reasoning for ordering compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service and failing to order for continuity of service together with full backwages, after rendering a finding that the termination was illegal, the award itself cannot be sustained.

¶33

In the light of the above discussion, the impugned award dated 28.09.2012 is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the second respondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders, reinstating the petitioner back in service, together with continuity of service, full backwages and other attendant benefits. Since the petitioner herein had reached the age of superannuation, the second respondent Corporation shall disburse all the retirement benefits, till the date of his superannuation and thereafter, pay the other pensionary benefits for which the petitioner may be entitled to. The second respondent shall pass such an order, at least within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

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

¶35