Allowed

V. Sugumaran v. the Management of

Madras HC22 Nov 2022WP(MD)/548/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order imposing monetary recovery for non-implemented increment cuts. Relying on the Industrial Disputes Act Settlement and a Division Bench decision, the court held that the management lacks leverage to enforce such recoveries and directed the refund of the deducted amount.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order imposing recovery of Rs.89,600 for non-implemented increment cuts was set aside; the respondent is directed to refund the illegally deducted Rs.15,000 to the petitioner.

V. Sugumaran Vs the Management of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.548 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.548 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.412 to 414 of 2020

¶7

V.Sugumaran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,

¶10

Represented by The Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

¶11

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Pudukkottai Region, Pudukkottai.

¶12

3.The Assistant Manager (Legal & Personnel), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Pudukkottai Region, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

W.P(MD)No.548 of 2020

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in TNSTC/Kumbakonam/Pudukkottai Region/Ni2/824/2019 dated 22.11.2019, quash the same insofar as imposing recovery of Rs.89,600/- from the petitioner towards monetary value equivalent to “Non-Implemented Punishments of Increment Cuts” and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner's recovered amount of Rs.15,000/- from his salary for the month of November and December 2019 towards total recovery of Rs.89,600/-.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

The writ petitioner was employed as Driver in the respondent Corporation. He retired from service on 30.06.2020. While so, he was visited with the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 proposing recovery of Rs.89,600/(Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only) towards monetary value equivalent of Non-Implemented Punishments of Increment Cuts. In quite a few decisions, it had been held that such recoveries cannot be made.

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

W.P(MD)No.548 of 2020

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the decision in W.P(MD)No.16524 of 2022. Paragraph 6 of the said order reads as follows:

¶25

“6. The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide Order dated 15.06.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2020 (The State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Chennai and three others V. G.Senthil and one other) had held as follows:-

¶26

“6. Be that as it may, if we examine the condition No.8 of the 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Settlement, we find that there is no such leverage given to the appellant-Management. The said Clause 8 reads as follows:

¶27

“gzpXa;tpd; bghGJ Vw;fdnt tHq;fg;gl;l Increment

¶28

Postponement nghd;w jz;lidfs; eilKiwg;gLj;jg;gl ,ayhj epiyapy; bghJ gzp tpjpfs; kw;Wk; epiyahiz tpjpfs; mog;gilapy; Increment bjhiff;F <lhd bjhif kl;Lnk gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gLk;. ,we;j bjhHpyhsh;fisg; bghWj;jtiuapy; nkw;brhd;d gpoj;jk; bra;ag;glkhl;lhJ. ”

¶29

Following the aforesaid decision, I have to necessarily hold that the management could not have passed the impugned order. It is stated that a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) has already been recovered from the petitioner's salary. This deduction is illegal. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount. The impugned order is also set aside.

¶30

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

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P(MD)No.548 of 2020

¶33

This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

22.11.2022

¶35

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga