Disposed

The Management v. the Principal Labour Court

Madras HC9 Oct 2023WA/2418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the Madras High Court disposed of pending litigation regarding a deceased workman's gratuity, pension, and family pension. Upon the Management agreeing to extend benefits based on actual service, the Court modified the Single Judge's order to reflect this settlement. Interest was waived, and gratuity recovery was prohibited.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Single Judge's order to extend pensionary benefits based on actual service agreed by the Management; directed that already agreed gratuity not be recovered and interest claims dismissed.

The Management Vs the Principal Labour Court — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A.No.2418 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.20250 of 2023

¶7

The Management, Rep. by its Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram Division II) Limited, Rangapuram, Vellore 632009.

¶8

Appellant

¶9

...vs...

¶10

The Principal Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶11

P.Munusamy (died)

¶12

Arputham

¶13

Shabina

¶14

M.Ashok

¶15

Asha

¶16

Usha

¶17

Divya .. Respondents

¶18

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order

¶19

dated 21.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.25489 of 2009.

¶20

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.S.Pavithra For Respondents : Mr.V.Subramani ***

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

(JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J )

¶25

Challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 21.02.2023 in

¶26

W.P.No.25489 of 2009, the Management has preferred the above Writ Appeal.

¶27

On 05.09.2023, this Court made the following suggestion:

¶28

“This is an appeal by the Transport Corporation. The workman breathed his last on 30.11.2017, i.e., during the pendency of the writ petition, and his legal heirs are on record.

¶29

2 Mr. Sivaraman, learned counsel, accepts notice for RR 2 to 7 who are the legal heirs of the deceased workman.

¶30

3 Heard Mrs. S. Pavithra, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Corporation and Mr. Sivaraman, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased workman.

¶31

4 The only ground based on which the award of the Labour Court has been interfered with by the Single Bench is that eyewitness to the accident was not examined in the domestic enquiry. But, be it noted, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 and J.D. Jain v The Management of State Bank of India AIR 1982 (SC) 673 , hearsay evidence is permissible in a domestic enquiry. That apart, from the documents available before us, it is very clear that the workman had involved in as many as 13 misconducts, including 2 fatal accidents, for which, he was also inflicted with punishments. Since the workman is no more and his legal heirs are on record, we suggested to the Management as to whether the actual service about two decades

¶32

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶34

rendered by the workman from 23.05.1981 to 25.11.2000 can be taken into account for the purpose of award of Gratuity and Family Pension.

¶35

Post on 14.09.2023.”

¶36

Pursuant to the aforesaid suggestion made by this Court, the issue was placed

¶37

before the Board of the Transport Corporation and the decision to extend the pension applicable for the actual services rendered by the workman vide communication dated 30.09.2023, addressed by the General Manager of the appellant Transport Corporation to the Standing Counsel, to that effect has been produced before this Court. For the

¶38

sake of ease of reference, the same is scanned and reproduced as under:

¶39

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶41

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that he has no objection for

¶42

accepting the total commitment, however, interest on the same may be directed to be paid.

¶43

Be it noted, it is not a case of normal retirement. It is no doubt true that there is

¶44

no cessation of employer - employee relationship and gratuity and Provident Fund amount due will have to be released unless it is withheld for the purpose of recovery. In this case, the Management had taken a decision that the Workman is not entitled to any relief. However, pursuant to the suggestion made by this Court, it has confined the relief only to one of compulsory retirement. As already stated, as the Provident Fund amount and gratuity amount have been agreed to be settled by the Transport Corporation on the suggestion made by this Court, the question of granting interest does not arise. Further, since the Management has agreed to extend pensionary benefits to the workman vide letter dated 30.09.2023 extracted above, the order of the learned Single Judge qua pensionary benefits, is modified to that effect. It is made clear that since Gratuity has already been agreed to be paid by the Transport Corporation, the same shall not be recovered.

¶45

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶47

This Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶48

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶49

[S.V.N., J.,] [K.R.S., J] 09.10.2023

¶50

Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No arr

¶51

¶52

The Principal Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶53

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶55

S. VAIDYANATHAN,J., and K.RAJASEKAR,J

¶56

arr

¶57

W.A.No.2418 of 2023

¶58

09.10.2023

¶59

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Management v. the Principal Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. the Principal Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Catalunya City Barcelona Owner Welfare Asso Vs Anithu Vivasaaya Sagupadi Pairkal Urpatthy Vivasayigal Sangam

S.Saraswathi, Vs a.R.Gopi,hereditary Trustee

M/s. Anithu Vivasaaya Sagupadi Pairkal Urpatthy Vivasayigal Sangam Vs a.R.Rahul Nadh IAS

S.Perumal Vs The Deputy Inspector General Registration

R.Hariraj Vs The Registrar General

The Management of Prince Pipes Vs G. Elangovan