Disposed

K.Mallika, v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC12 Jul 2023WP/12865/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking writs under Article 226 to quash a labour court award dismissing an industrial dispute. Unable to quash the award due to lack of employer-employee proof, the Court directed the employer to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 75,000 to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to pay Rs. 75,000 as one-time compensation to the petitioner within two weeks.

K.Mallika, Vs The Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

K.Mallika

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶11

The Management, 100-Number Beedi Ring Unit, V.K.Abdul Jabbar & Sons, No.26, Sami Naidu Street, Ranipet – 632 402. ...Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.29 of 2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent, quash the award dated 22.08.2014 passed therein by the 1^st respondent and further direct the 2^nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Aasim Shehzad for M/s.BFS Legal, for R2

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the award of the 1^st respondent dated 22.08.2014 made in I.D.No.29 of 2013 and to consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that, she was working under the 2^nd respondent, who is engaged in the business of manufacture of beedies, as a daily wager from 1986 and she was doing the job of sticking ring label to the beedie. As she was not paid the earned leave wages and the festival holiday wages, the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent expressing her grievance. Having got enraged by the repeated demands, the 2^nd respondent denied employment to the petitioner from 01.03.2012. At the instance of the petitioner, conciliation proceedings were initiated, which ended in failure resulting in filing of the industrial dispute in I.D.No.29 of 2013 before the 1^st respondent. Before the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent resisted the claim made by the petitioner contending that she abandoned the services from 01.03.2012, that despite offering employment to the petitioner during 2/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

¶22

the course of conciliation proceedings, she did not report to duty and that she was gainfully employed somewhere else. After contest, by the impugned award dated 22.08.2014, the 1^st respondent dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner

¶24

used to collect the materials from the 2^nd respondent and deliver the finished products on daily basis and stick labels for around 20,000-25,000 beedies

¶25

per day, for which, she earns a monthly salary of about Rs.7,500/- only. While so, all of a sudden, the 2^nd respondent, retrenched the petitioner and questioning the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, however, the 1^st respondent, without considering any of the above said facts, dismissed the ID, vide present impugned order, which is wholly unsustainable. However, he fairly submitted that, since the petitioner is aged about 63 years, this Court may fix a fair compensation in her favour and accordingly, prayed for appropriate orders.

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, there is no employer-employee relationship in between the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner and the petitioner was temporarily engaged as Beedie worker by the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner used to stick ring label to the beedies and she was paid based on the piece rate. Further, no document was produced by the petitioner either before the 1^st respondent or before this Court to show that she received monthly salary. Hence, in the absence of any documents to establish the employer-employee relationship as alleged by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent had rightly dismissed the industrial

¶30

dispute raised by the petitioner and the same does not warrants interference of this Court.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

¶32

appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and perused the material documents placed on record.

¶33

Though, the 2^nd respondent submitted that, they are ready to

¶34

provide the earlier work to the petitioner as done by her, however,

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

¶38

considering the fact that, the petitioner is aged about 63 years and has not been in employment for the past 10 years, and that, she is a pathani worker and in order to strike balance in between the parties, this Court directs the 2^nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a one time compensation in full quit in favour of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the said compensation amount will carry interest at 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition.

¶39

With the above observations and directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶40

12.07.2023

¶41

skt

¶42

Index : Yes (or) No Neutral Citation : Yes (or) No Speaking Order : Yes (or) No

¶43

¶44

The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

¶48

M.DHANDAPANI., J.

skt

W.P.No.12865 of 2016

12.07.2023

6/6

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

K.Mallika, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mallika, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Correspondent Vs The Appellate Authority

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management Vs Thiru M.Selvaraj (Deceased)

M/s.St.Thomas Mat. Hr. Sec. School Vs The Esi Corporation

Pondicherry Chamber of Vs The Government of Puducherry

Nlc Workers Solidarity Union, Vs The Presiding Officer