Dismissed

The Management v. K. Vadivelu (Driver)

Madras HC21 Apr 2023WA/922/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Transport Corporation against the Single Judge's order confirming the Labour Court's direction to pay Rs. 4,334/- in overtime wages. The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed as the litigation cost far exceeded the nominal amount in dispute, and directed the employer to release the dues within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to pay Rs. 4,334/- plus interest within three months.

The Management Vs K. Vadivelu (Driver) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶7

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, 12, Ramakrishnan Road, Salem 636 007. .. Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

L. Vadivelu (Driver) .. Respondents

¶10

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.07.2022 in WP.No.16828 of 2022 passed by the Single Judge of this Court.

¶11

For appellant : Mr.K.Raja

¶12

Page No.1 / 5

¶13

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

¶14

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

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

¶17

The present appeal has been preferred by the Management against the order dated 04.07.2022 of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.16828 of 2022 in confirming the order dated 03.03.2021 of the Labour Court, Salem in ID.No.22 of 2014, in computing overtime wages of Rs.4,334/- payable to the employee, which shall be released to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it was ordered that interest at 6% up to the date of the order and thereafter, at 9% till the amount is disbursed to the employee.

¶18

The Management/employer has not disputed the overtime work done by the employee and the Labour Court has categorically held that the contention of the employee has not been disputed and in the penultimate paragraph of the order, it has been stated that the employer has paid only a portion of the amount and the remaining amount has not been paid.

¶19

Page No.2 / 5

¶20

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

¶21

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶22

The learned Single Judge, while confirming the order of the Labour Court, has categorically taken note of the fact that in terms of Exs.P4, P7, P9, P11 and P13 and the documentary evidence together with oral evidence and the statement of the Management before the Labour Court, the Court has rendered a finding that the employee would be entitled to Rs.4,334/- and that finding need not be interfered with. To be noted, instead of paying the meagre amount of Rs.4,334/-, the employer has paid a sum of Rs.2,000/towards Court Fees while filing the Writ Petition and another sum of Rs.2,000/- towards Court Fee while filing the instant Writ Appeal, apart from batta and other expenses.

¶23

We find that the nominal amount, which has been determined by the Labour Court based on the findings, ought not to have been questioned more so, when the litigation cost has worked out much more than the amount payable to the employee. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The employer is directed to release the amount as per the order of the Labour

¶24

Page No.3 / 5

¶25

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

¶26

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶27

Court within a period of three months, failing which, the interest portion can

¶28

be recovered from the officers, who are responsible to release the amount.

¶29

No costs.

¶30

(S.V.N.J.,) (R.K.M.J.,) 21.04.2023

¶31

Speaking Order: Yes / No pvs

¶32

To The Labour Court, Salem

¶33

Page No.4 / 5

¶34

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

¶35

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶36

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J and R.KALAIMATHI, J

¶37

pvs

¶38

Writ Appeal No.922 of 2023

¶39

21.04.2023

¶40

Page No.5 / 5

¶41

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

The Management v. K. Vadivelu (Driver)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. K. Vadivelu (Driver)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.v.Sathiyanarayanan Vs the Authorized Officer and Assistant General Manager

Minvariyaoppandhathozhilalaragalsangam Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

M/S. Sivamani Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs the Recovery Officer

R.P.Varadharaj (died) Vs P.Govindaraj(Died)

Durairaj Vs E.Poothuraja

D.Vargeeskumar Vs v.P.Raja