Dismissed

The Managing Director v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC22 Nov 2023WA/3234/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the intra-court appeals by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. It held that prior common orders already fixed monetary benefits under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act for the workmen involved in these appeals, making separate orders unnecessary. The writ appeals and connected CMs were closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were closed without any separate order as the prior common order established the liability to pay wages.

The Managing Director Vs the Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A. Nos.3234, 3237, 3238,3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.A. Nos. 3234, 3237, 3238, 3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶9

¶10

C.M.P. Nos. 26435, 26439, 26449, 26453, 26454, 26455, 26459, 26463,

¶11

26530, 26589, 26524,& 26525 of 2023

¶12

W.A. No. 3234 of 2023

¶13

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rural Water Supply Division, (The 2^nd petitioner already addressed as office of the Executive Urban Project Division, Kangayam has been closed and records were handed over to TWAD Board RWS Division, Erode is the present. (Address of the 2^nd petitioner) No.10, G.L. Bungalow, Muthusamy Street, Sathi Salai, Erode – 638 001.

¶15

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

¶16

1\6

¶17

W.A. Nos.3234, 3237, 3238,3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶18

¶19

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Division, Muthiah Complex, 3^rd Floor, 1171, Mettur Road, Erode – 638 011.

¶20

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Sub Division, Karumayal Extension -3, Gobichettipalayam – 638 456. ..Appellants

¶21

Vs.

¶22

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

¶23

P. Murugesan ..Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 27.07.2023 passed in

¶25

W.P. No. 34669 of 2014.

¶26

For Appellants :: Mr.S. Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Mekhala For Respondents :: Mr. M.Muthupandian for R2

¶27

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶28

(Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)

¶29

The present intra court appeals have been filed by the Tamil Nadu

¶30

Water Supply and Drainage Board as against the order of the learned Single

¶31

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

¶32

2\6

¶33

W.A. Nos.3234, 3237, 3238,3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶34

Judge dated 27.07.2023 passed in W.P. Nos.34669, 34683, 34687, 34668, 34677 & 34685 of 2014 respectively insofar as it was held that the workmen therein were entitled to payment of wages under Section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“I.D. Act”, in short) from the date of the award till the date of disposal of the writ petitions and the appellant Board was directed to withdraw the deposit made by them before the Labour Court pursuant to the interim orders passed in the writ petitions after deducting the wages under Section 17B of I.D. Act, 1947 payable by the appellant Board to the workmen and permitted the workmen to withdraw the same.

¶35

Earlier, this Court, in a batch of six writ appeals in W.A. Nos.

¶36

3138 & 3160 to 3164 of 2023, filed by the appellant Board, as against the very same common order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 15.11.2023, disposed of the writ appeals, fixing the monetary benefits payable under Section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Rs.50,000/- not only to those employees concerned in the said writ appeals, but to each of the workman concerned in the respective industrial dispute, before the Labour Court, Salem and the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶37

“ ....... However, taking into account the totality of

¶38

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

¶39

3\6

¶40

W.A. Nos.3234, 3237, 3238,3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶41

circumstances, that the finding of the Labour Court has been held to be perverse by the learned Single Judge, that no relief has been granted and that so many employees are before this Court, we are of the view that in order to give a quietus to the matter, when the factum of employment is not in dispute, it is suffice that the monetary benefits payable to the employees in these writ appeals under Section 17B of I.D. Act, 1947, which cannot be less than minimum wages, is fixed at Rs.50,000/- insofar as each workman is concerned.

¶42

9. Mr.S. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that during the pendency of the writ petitions, a sum of Rs.37,500/- had already been deposited in respect of each workman concerned in the industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, on production of a copy of this order, is directed to release the amount with accrued interest to each of the workman, who will be identified by the learned counsel for the workmen without insisting for “No Objection” endorsement by the Board. The balance amount of Rs.12,500/- shall be released to each of the workman concerned in the industrial dispute within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. “

¶43

From the above extracted portion of the order, it is seen that this Court had granted monetary benefits to all the workmen concerned in

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the respective industrial dispute before the Labour Court and hence, no

¶45

4\6

¶46

W.A. Nos.3234, 3237, 3238,3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶47

separate orders are necessary in these writ appeals as the direction given by

¶48

this Court in W.A. Nos.3138 & 3160 to 3164 of 2023 would be applicable to the employees in these writ appeals as well. Hence, the writ appeals stand closed. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps are closed.

¶49

(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)

¶50

nv 22.11.2023

¶51

¶52

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.

¶53

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rural Water Supply Division, (The 2^nd petitioner already addressed as office of the Executive Urban Project Division, Kangayam has been closed and records were handed over to TWAD Board RWS Division, Erode is the present. (Address of the 2^nd petitioner) No.10, G.L. Bungalow, Muthusamy Street, Sathi Salai, Erode – 638 001.

¶54

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Division, Muthiah Complex, 3^rd Floor, 1171, Mettur Road, Erode – 638 011.

¶55

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

¶56

5\6

¶57

W.A. Nos.3234, 3237, 3238,3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶58

S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.

AND

K. RAJASEKAR,J.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Sub Division, Karumayal Extension -3, Gobichettipalayam – 638 456.

¶63

W.A. Nos. 3234, 3237, 3238,

¶64

3240, 3252 & 3253 of 2023

¶65

22.11.2023

¶66

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

¶67

6\6

The Managing Director v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Venkatesan Vs the Registrar General

The managment Vs M.Vsudevan

M/s.The Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Labour

Chellappan Vs Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management Vs The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour