The High Court modified a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of a workman. While affirming reinstatement due to victimization concerning unequal treatment with colleagues, the Court adjusted the back wage liability and vacated its own interim stay order.
Reinstatement directed; back wages modified to 50% interim amount.
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.P. No.13617 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P. No.13617 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Management Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Rep. By its President No.18, First Street Seetharam Nagar Pudupalayam Cuddalore – 607 001. ... Petitioner vs. 1.M.Ravisankar S/o Muthukrishnan 2.The Presiding Officer Labour Court Cuddalore. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to pass a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in its award dated 10.04.2014 in I.D.No.23 of 2011 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For respondents : Mr.K.Arunagiri for R1 For R2 - Court
W.P. No.13617 of 2014
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the Management as against the order passed in I.D.No.23 of 2011 dated 10.04.2014 on the file of the Labour Court, Cuddalore, whereby, the Labour court set aside the retrenchment of the workman and directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and to pay back wages from the date of reinstatement of the workmen.
petitioner Society as a daily wage employee and he was retrenched from service on 07.09.2001, for the reason that he was a surplus staff after the fixation of cadre strength.
workman was working on daily wages and not a permanent employee and therefore, his termination on 07.09.2001 challenged in the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.23/2011 after a lapse of ten years, ought to have been dismissed on delay aspect. The learned counsel would submit that the Management complied with Section 25F and paid the retrenchment compensation to the
W.P. No.13617 of 2014
workman and therefore, the Labour court committed error in ordering reinstatement of the employee.
workman would submit that as against retrenchment, the workman preferred an industrial dispute in I.D.No.23 of 2011 and the Labour Court had ordered
for reinstatement and directed the petitioner Society to pay back wages as stipulated in the said order. He would further submit that the Labour court clearly pointed out that two persons who were retrenched along with the 1st respondent-workman have been reinstated, the management decision to leave out the petitioner alone would constitute victimization.
the one who was retrenched along with the petitioner has been reinstated, so
W.P. No.13617 of 2014
the petitioner also has a right to be reinstated. The decision of the
management to leave out the petitioner alone among the persons who were retrenched along with the petitioner would certainly constitute victimization and such victimization cannot be permitted to continue.
granted interim stay of the award of the Labour court and directed the petitioner-management to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act and pays the workman last drawn wages from the date of the Award.
Further, this court directed the petitioner-management to deposit 50% of the backwages within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
4/6
W.P. No.13617 of 2014
Labour Court in respect of the award directing reinstatement, deems it fit to modify the award in respect of backwages alone to meet the ends of justice. As such, the Petitioner-Management is directed to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman and pay 50% of the remaining balance backwages till the date of reinstatement of the workman, taking note of the order of this court dated 14.05.2014.
Index :Yes/No 19.06.2023 Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral citation:Yes/No Jer/nvsri
To The Presiding Officer Labour Court Cuddalore.
5/6
W.P. No.13617 of 2014
J.NISHA BANU, J.
Jer/nvsri
ORDER MADE IN W.P. No.13617 of 2014
19.06.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the management decision to reinstate one retrenched workman but exclude another returned colleague constitutes victimization requiring automatic reinstatement.
How back wages should be calculated after granting interim stay and modifying the Labour Court's award.
Whether sufficient explanation is required for the workman to prove the back wages to the employer.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
M.Ravisankar
Presiding Officer Labour Court Cuddalore
J.Nisha Banu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
