Single judge High Court observed Labour Court's finding of oral termination unsupported by evidence. Confirmed reinstatement of casual workmen but quashed direction for 30% back wages due to lack of proof regarding non-employment.
Reinstatement direction confirmed; direction to pay 30% back wages quashed.
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.36725 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 08.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 24. 11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
W.P.Nos.36725 of 2015 and 1447 of 2016
C.Chandran ...Petitioner in W.P.No.36725 of 2015
The Management of Karadiyur Estate, Rep., by its Proprietor Alfred Swaminathan, Karadiyur Post,
Yercaud-636 602 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.1447 of 2016
vs.
Yercaud-636 602. ..Respondents in W.P.No.36725 of 2015
2.C.Chandran ..Respondents in W.P.No.1447 of 2016
1/12
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
Prayer in W.P.No.36725 of 2015: This Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the common award passed by the first respondent dated 15.05.2014 in I.D.No.68 of 2003 and quash the same in for as denial of 70% backwages to the petitioner herein and consequently direct the second respondent to pay the 70% backwages and other attendant benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.1447 of 2016: This Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.68 of 2003 and quash its award dated 15.05.2014.
In W.P.No.36725 of 2015:
For Petitioner : M/s.C.S.Monica For Respondents : M/s.S.Ravindran, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahmed for R2
In W.P.No.1447 of 2016:
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Ravindran, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahmed
For Respondents : M/s.C.S.Monica for R2
2/12
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition No.36725 of 2015 to quash the order passed by the first respondent insofar as I.D.No.68 of 2003 dated 15.05.2014 and to issue a direction to the respondent to pay 70% backwages and other attendant benefits and the petitioner/Management in W.P.No.1447 of 2016 has filed writ petition to quash the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.NO.68 of 2003.
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
coffee seeds. Apart from regular employees who are engaged throughout the year, based on exigencies, the petitioner also engages casual workmen on daily basis to whom wages will be paid weekly. The second respondent is one of the casual workmen. The second respondent and other workmen were not given work everyday and whenever there is a work, their services will be utilized and whenever there was no work, the work will not be given to the casual workers.
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
6/12
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
evidence placed before the Tribunal that the second respondent that he was not gainfully employed
contention has cited a judgment Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department versus Their Workmern, reported in 2019(18) SCC 814, Hon'ble Apex Court had held as follows:
“12. In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages are required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies, etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee [ M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee , (2003) 6 SCC 141 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 833] , Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh [ Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh , (2005) 5 SCC 591 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 716] , U.P. State Brassware
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey [ U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey , (2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [ J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal , (2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] , Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan [ Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan , (2009) 9 SCC 601 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 719] , Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board [ Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board , (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [ Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya , (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184] .
13. The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent.”
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited , reported in 2018 (12) SCC 663 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as follows:
8/12
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
“11. Indeed, the employee in order to claim the relief of back wages along with the relief of reinstatement is required to prove with the aid of evidence that from the date of his dismissal order till the date of his rejoining, he was not gainfully employed anywhere. The employer too has a right to adduce evidence to show otherwise that an employee concerned was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any relief of back wages.
12. On proving such facts to the satisfaction of the Court, the back wages are accordingly awarded either in full or part or may even be declined as the case may be while passing the order of reinstatement. The courts have also applied in appropriate cases the principle of “no work no pay” while declining to award back wages and confining
the relief only to the extent of grant of reinstatement along with grant of some consequential reliefs by awarding some benefits notionally, if any, in exercise of discretionary powers depending upon the facts of each
case.”
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Speaking/Non-speaking Order
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
24.11.2023
jai
To
Dr.D.NAGARJUN, J. jai
W.P.No.36725 of 2015
W.P.Nos.36725 of 2015 and 1447 of 2016
24.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Labour Court finding of oral termination based solely on representation from workmen without material evidence can be accepted.
Whether the Supreme Court's statutory interpretations of back wage awards apply to casual workmen where there is no evidence of non-employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department versus Their Workermen, 2019(18) SCC 814Relied on¶52
M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee, (2003) 6 SCC 141Relied on¶53
Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591Relied on¶53
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433Relied on¶53
Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601Relied on¶53
Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327Relied on¶53
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324Relied on¶53
P.Karupaiah versus General Manager, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited, 2018 (12) SCC 663Relied on¶58
Ch.Chandran
Management of Karadiyur Estate
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem
D.Nagarjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
