Dismissed

The Management, v. The General Secretary

Madras HC5 Jul 2023WP/22357/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal Award. The Award held that retiring employees working till the month-end were entitled to full salary for the last ten days, finding the management's practice of paying only till the 20th day unfair. The Court refused interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for Certiorari to quash the Industrial Tribunal Award was dismissed.

The Management, Vs The General Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.22357 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.22357 of 2016 And

¶7

W.M.P.No.19065 of 2016

¶8

The Management, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Rep. its Managing Director ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The General Secretary State Transport Corporation Employees Union, Regd.No.73/MDS (CITU),

¶11

2, Pallavan Salai, Kalaiyaranga Valagam, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

2.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, City Civil Court Main Building, High Court Compound, Chennai – 600 104.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.No.22357 of 2016

¶19

passed in I.D.No.17 of 2013 dated 27.01.2016 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram For Respondents : Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu for R1

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in I.D.No.17 of 2013 dated 27.01.2016 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶23

2.The facts of the case is that the petitioner Management was paying salary to the employees on the last working day of the month and thereafter with the consent of all the Trade Union including the first respondent, present payment of salary system commenced during the month of April 1995 and November 1998 by the Pallavan Transport Corporation and Ambedkar Transport Corporation respectively, as per

¶24

which the attendance register was altered/ modified and attendance was recorded each month from 21^st of the month to the 20 day of the subsequent month. During the first month of the implementation of

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.22357 of 2016

¶28

the new system, full month salary was paid without referring the attendance for the last 10 days of the month.

¶29

3.At the time of retirement, the salary of the employee was paid till 20^th day of that month. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent raised industrial dispute before the second respondent and the second respondent passed the impugned Award holding that the procedure followed by the Management i.e., non-payment of wages/ salary to the retiring employees for the period from 21^st day till the last working day is un-justified and the retiring employees are entitled for the wages/ salary for the period from 21^st day till the last working day of the retiring month and are also entitled for the collection of bonus and batta for the very same days if they worked for the said period. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶30

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the present system of payment of salary was successfully implemented and the same was accepted by all the Union except the first respondent Union and further submitted that the issue was not properly considered by the second respondent and the impugned

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.22357 of 2016

¶34

award is perverse and warrants interference.

¶35

5.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the members of the first respondent work for the entire month and were allowed to retire at the end of the month, however, the petitioner introduced new system of payment of salary, whereby the salary to the retiring employee was not paid for the last ten days, which is not sustainable. As against the unfair labour practice the petitioner raised industrial dispute and the Labour Court rightly passed the impugned award which warrants no interference.

¶36

6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

7.The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the employees were allowed to retire from service at the end of the month. Their services were extracted till the end of the month, however, as per the present system of payment of salary, the salary to the retiring employee was paid till 20^th of the month and not paid for the last ten days, which in the considered opinion of this Court is unfair. Hence, the impugned award does not warrant any interference.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.22357 of 2016

¶41

8.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶42

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

05.07.2023

¶44

pri

¶45

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶46

¶47

1.The General Secretary State Transport Corporation Employees Union, Regd.No.73/MDS (CITU), 2, Pallavan Salai, Kalaiyaranga Valagam, Chennai – 600 002.

¶48

2.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, City Civil Court Main Building, High Court Compound, Chennai – 600 104.

¶49

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

¶50

5/6

¶51

W.P.No.22357 of 2016

¶52

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶53

W.P.No.22357 of 2016 And W.M.P.No.19065 of 2016

¶54

05.07.2023

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

The Management, v. The General Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management, v. The General Secretary

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

The Correspondent Vs The Appellate Authority

E.Premkumar, Vs The Management

Glenrock Estates (P) Ltd, Vs The Appellate Authority Under

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs the Administrator

The Management Vs Thiru.K.Sakthiyavel

The Deputy Director Vs P.Venkatesan,S/o.Pachaiyappan