The High Court increased compensation from Rs.3 to Rs.4 lakhs to settle an industrial dispute regarding alleged oral termination, rejected reinstatement claims due to strained relations, and directed payment exclusive of gratuity.
Compensation increased to Rs.4 lakhs; reinstatement rejected; compensation payable within two months exclusive of gratuity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
P. Ravichandran
..Appellant
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in
W.P. No. 28185 of 2018.
For Appellant :: Mr.V.Sivakumar
1\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Bazeer Ahmed for R1
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
Challenging the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in W.P. No. 28185 of
2018, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
respondent Management as a fitter on 03.05.1988 and was a permanent worker. During the course of his work, all of a sudden, the appellant was directed to report duty at Nagpur to attend to certain service works. He was transferred to Nagpur to attend to the service works. According to the petitioner, though he submitted his objections, he joined duty at Nagpur and finally, he was transferred again to Coimbatore. However, the appellant/writ petitioner was not permitted to join duty and he was orally terminated from service. The appellant/writ petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 131 of 2013 questioning his oral termination. The
2\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
Labour Court, Coimbatore, after analysing the materials on record, passed an award on 28.11.2017 directing the Management to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.3 lakhs as full and final settlement with regard to the entire claim. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P. NO. 28185 of 2018 seeking reinstatement, continuity of service with full backwages and other attendant benefits and by order dated 28.11.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition confirming the award passed by the Labour Court. Challenging the same, the present intra court appeal has been preferred by the employee.
3\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
observed that as there was strained relationship between the employer and
the employee, it would not be feasible for the employer to provide employment and the employee can be given adequate compensation instead of reinstatement. As the employee, while deposing as W.W.1, had stated that he had suffered loss of Rs.3 lakhs in view of illegal retrenchment, the quantum of compensation payable by the Management was fixed as Rs.3 lakhs. The claim of reinstatment and other benefits were not granted.
4\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
above stand of the Management are extracted hereunder:
".......kDjhuh; ntiy bra;a jahuhf ,Ug;gjhf
kDtpy; Twpf; bfhz;L tpl;L ,Jehs; tiu gzpf;F M$uhfhky; ,Ue;J bfhz;L bjhHpw;jhth K:yk; rl;l tpnuhj gyd; bgWtjpnyna Fwpahf ,Ue;J tUfpwhh;/ kDjhuiu gzpf;F M$uhFk;go eph;thfk; gy;ntW foj';fs; mDg;gpa[k; mjid mth; myl;rpag;gLj;jpf; bfhz;L gzpf;F M$uhfhky; ,Ue;J tUfpwhh;/ kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jpw;F vt;tpj epge;jida[k; tpjpf;fhky; gzpf;F M$uhFk; gl;rj;jpy; mtUf;F gzp tH';f jahuhf cs;sJ/"
@,e;j tHf;ifg; bghWj;jtiu. Kdjhuiu eph;thfk; gzp ePf;fKk; bra;atpy;iy/ gzp tH';ft[k; kWf;ftpy;iy/ Mfnt mtuJ bjhHpw;jhth epiyepWj;jj;jf;fjy;y/ mtuJ – jhth bjhHpw;jhthnt my;y vd;gjhy;.mjd; kPJ jh';fs; rkur ngr;R nkw;bfhs;Sk; mtrpa R{HYk; Vw;gltpy;iy/ kDjhuiu gzpf;F jpUk;g[khW gyKiw mwpt[Wj;jp foj';fs; mDg;gp mjd;
5\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
efy;fSk; j';fSf;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e ; epiyapy; kDjhuh;. nkw;go nghypahd jhthit thg!; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L gzpf;F jpUk;g[tij tpLj;J gpothjg;nghf;nfhL. nkw;go jhthit typa[Wj;jp rkur Kwptwpf;if nfhhp tUfpwhh;/ kDjhuiu eph;thfk; ntiy ePf;fnk bra;atpy;iy vd;gjhy;. MtuJ nghypahd jhth kPJ rkur ngr;R thh;j;ij nkw;bfhs;snth. Rkur Kwpt[ mwpf;if mDg;g[k; R{Hnyh vHtpy;iy vd;gij kDjhuUf;F vLj;Jf;Twp. g[hpaitj;J mtuJ bjhHpw;jhth epiyepWj;jj;jf;fjy;y vd;gija[k; bjspt[gLj;jp ,e;j nfhg;ig Koj;Jf; bfhs;SkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/@
"8. The respondent management submits that it is prepared
to provide employment tothe petitioner as usual, as they neither refused employment to the petitioner nor retrenched him from service. However, the petitioner should not press the Industrial dispute raised before this Honourable Court and he may be report for work without imposing any
6\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
conditions or reserving rights to continue the "so called" dispute before this Honourable Court."
Besides, there is no iota of evidence to show that the employee had been terminated. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was termination, before the Conciliation Officer as well as before the Labour Court, the Management had asked the employee to report for work contending that there was no denial of employment. Even after counter statement filed before the Labour Court wherein the Management had stated that it was prepared to provide employment, the employee could have joined duty and put an end to the dispute, instead, he had received the compensation in the industrial dispute, which was also confirmed by the learned Single Judge. As observed by us, even assuming that the employee who had joined service on 03.05.1988, had been divested of his duty, in spite of repeated requests to him by various communications and also the statement made before the Conciliation Officer and Labour Court by the Management, it is the employee, who had not reported for work.
7\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
the compensation could be increased to Rs.5 lakhs. Mr.S. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent Management submitted that he he would put across the same to the Management and report back to Court. When the matter is taken up today, learned Senior Counsel for the Management would submit that the employer is willing to give compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and not more than that.
8\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
the amount to the employer. It is also made clear that the compensation of
Rs.4 lakhs is exclusive of Gratuity and it is towards full and final settlement of all the claims pertaining to the industrial dispute and in lieu of reinstatement. The amount payable to the employee shall be paid within a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
nv
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 27.06.2023
To
9\10
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
27.06.2023
10\10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to modify the Labour Court award fixing Rs.3 lakhs compensation for oral termination and grant reinstatement.
Whether the strained relationship and failure to report work justify refusal of reinstatement.
Whether the compensation should be increased or kept as is to settle all claims.
P. Ravichandran
The Management, Sharp Industries
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Coimbatore
S. Vaidyanathan
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
