Disposed

K.G.S.Spinners, v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC25 Jul 2023WP/14647/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of writ petitions assailing a Labour Court order directing payment of salary and bonus as per Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that while the salary claim was limited to 10 days of work, the deposited sum covered the workmen's salary and bonus as a full settlement for their discharge.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court is directed to disburse the deposited amount to the identified workmen as a full and final settlement of their salary and bonus claims.

K.G.S.Spinners, Vs The Presiding Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25.07.2023

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

W.P.Nos.14647 to 14649, 22912 to 22931 of 2016, 23291 to 23310 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.12808 to 12813, 19600 to 19639, 19970 to 20009 of 2016, & 21211 to 21214 of 2019

¶5

W.P.No.14647 of 2016

¶6

1.K.G.S.Spinners Represented by its Proprietor S.Sreekanth, 'Jayshree' 55, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶7

2.B.Anupa Ranganayaki, 3.S.Sree Vickrant (Minor), 4.S.Aathreya (Minor), 5.Radhika Srihari

¶8

(Petitioners 2 to 5 impleaded vide order dated 25.07.2023 in W.M.P.No.21328 of 2023 in W.P.No.14647 of 2016) ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶11

2.B.Premavathi ... Respondents

¶12

_________ Page 1 of 8

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order or directions in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with the C.P.No:315 of 2008 dated 22.10.2012 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner (in all petitions) : M/s.S.R.Sundar

¶17

For Respondents (in all petitions) : Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel appointed as amicus for R2

¶18

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶19

Though the above Writ Petitions were listed as different items in

¶20

the cause list, since the issue involved in all Writ Petitions being one and the same, this Court grouped all the Writ Petitions together and disposed of by way of a common order.

¶21

The above Writ Petitions have been filed assailing the Order

¶22

passed by the labour court/ 1^st Respondent in Computation Petition Nos. 342 362 & 315 to 333 of 2008 & 67,68 &70 of 2009 in respective Writ

¶23

Petitions.

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that Petitioner Management was in operation for a period from 1981 to 1985 and 1992 to 1995 with 94 workers. Due to illegal strike by the Employees since 31.03.1995, the management stopped its operation from 10.04.1995. Out of 94 employees, 60 submitted their resignation letter and upon receipt of the same, they were settled with Gratuity and other benefits in full and final settlement as per Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, after a lapse of 14 years, computation petitions came to be filed by the employees/2^nd respondents before the 1^st respondent labour court under section 33C-2 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 claiming salary, bonus and certain other benefits for a period from March to April, 1995 in the which, the labour court has ordered for payment of salary to the tune of Rs.5160/- for the period from 01.03.1995 to 10.04.1995 and bonus for the year 1993-1994 to each of the employees. Aggrieved by the order passed by the labour court, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

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

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already there was a settlement under section 18(1) of the Act on 18.09.2002. However, the computation petitions have been filed only in the year 2008 which is after a period of six years. Therefore, the same is not maintainable. In this regard, though, the petitioner management filed a detailed counter affidavit before the labour court, the same was not examined by the trial court. Without perusing any material as also the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner management, the trial court has passed the impugned order directing the management to pay salary due for the month of march including the bonus to the employees who are arrayed as the 2^nd Respondent in respective Writ Petitions. Hence, the order of the Trial Court needs to be interfered with.

¶30

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2^nd

¶31

Respondents/workmen disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of limitation as the concept of limitation is not applicable for the computation petitions filed under section 33C-2 of

¶32

_________ Page 4 of 8

¶33

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

¶34

the industrial disputes Act and however, the limitation is applicable only for 2(A)(2) petitions as the issue with regard to applicability of limitation has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court .

¶35

Further, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd

¶36

Respondents/workmen fairly conceded that as per Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they are not entitled for one month salary for the period in which they went on strike and they are entitled only for 10 days salary.

¶37

The aforesaid fact is not in dispute and the workmen agreed for

¶38

payment for the month of March and the 2^nd respondents/workmen are entitled for bonus as well which cannot be disputed. However, the petitioner agreed to deposit the amount as ordered by the trial court as full settlement. Therefore, this Court may issue a direction to disburse the amount in favour

¶39

of the 2^nd Respondents equally as full quit without any further agitations and the same is binding on the respective respondents.

¶40

_________ Page 5 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management has

¶43

no serious objection since the entire amount is deposited pursuant to the order of Labour Court and whatever the wages for ten days shall be paid to the respective Respondents/Workmen equally and the balance amount has to be returned back to the petitioner management.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶45

Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶46

The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly there was 18(1) settlement in between the parties in the year 2002 in which

¶47

the 2^nd Respondents/workmen specifically admitted that they are not

¶48

entitled for salary after 1995. Whereas the claim of the 2^nd Respondents/workmen even after 1995 is non-est, the factory functioned only for a period of 10 days and therefore 2^nd Respondents also worked only for the said 10 days which was not disputed by the Petitioner

¶49

Page 6 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

management. Therefore, the 2^nd Respondents are entitled for salary for the said period only. Further, the 2^nd Respondents are also entitled for bonus and the said issue was not properly discussed in 18(1) settlement in order to balance the dispute between the parties, amount already deposited by the

¶52

Petitioner Management is sufficient to the 2^nd Respondent as full quit. After verifying the identification of the workmen, the labour court is directed to disburse the amount to the workmen.

¶53

With the above observation, these Writ Petitions are disposed

¶54

of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶55

25.07.2023

¶56

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶57

NHS

¶58

_________ Page 7 of 8

¶59

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

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

NHS

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶64

W.P.Nos.14647 to 14649, 22912 to 22931 of 2016, 23291 to 23310 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.12808 to 12813, 19600 to 19639, 19970 to 20009 of 2016, 21211 to 21214 of 2019

¶65

25.07.2023

¶66

_________ Page 8 of 8

¶67

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

K.G.S.Spinners, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.S.Spinners, 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

M/s.v.Narayanamurthy Vs The Deputy Chief Labour

The Management of Vs P.Arumugam (Deceased)

The Superintending Engineer, Vs Inspector of Labour

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

M/s. Sail Refractory Company Vs Union of India

Salem, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu