Disposed

The Management v. Sathish a

Madras HC27 Jul 2023WP/5065/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging a Labour Court award on industrial disputes regarding termination. The Court allowed the petitions on terms that the management pays the workman a fixed settlement sum and removes any blocklisting, effectively settling the dispute without adjudicating the underlying legal merits of the termination.

What did the court decide?

Management directed to pay Rs.6,50,000 within four weeks and remove blocklisting if any, with no costs awarded.

The Management Vs Sathish a — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.5177 of 2022

¶8

W.P.No.5065 of 2022

¶9

The Management,

¶10

New Generation Media Corporation Private Limited, Plot No.25-A, N P Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Ekkatuthangal, Guindy (Post), Chennai – 600 032.

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Sathish A ... Respondent W.P.No.10258 of 2022 A.Sathish ... Petitioner

¶14

Vs.

¶15

The Management, Chief News Editor, Puthiya Thalaimurai Television, No.25A, Ekkattuthangal, N.P.Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600 032. ... Respondent

¶16

Prayer in W.P.No.5065 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the

¶17

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022

¶19

order passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in O.P.No.176 of 2019 order dated 26.10.2021.

¶20

Prayer in W.P.No.10258 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling records from the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai relating to the impugned award dated 26.10.2021 in O.P.No.176 of 2019 and quash only that portion of the award denying 75% of back wages from the date of termination till the date of award and without attendant benefits for the nonemployment period and direct the respondent to pay full back wages and other attendant service benefits and award cost.

¶21

W.P.No.5065 of 2022

¶22

For Petitioner : Dr.V.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi

¶23

W.P.No.10258 of 2022

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi

¶25

For Respondent : Dr.V.Venkatesan

¶26

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions being one and the

¶29

same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, these

¶30

writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶31

The petitioner in W.P.No.5065 of 2022, who is the respondent in

¶32

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022

¶34

W.P.No.10258 of 2022, is hereinafter called as 'management' and the respondent in W.P.No.5065 of 2022, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.10258 of 2022, is hereinafter called as 'workman'.

¶35

3. The workman was appointed as Camera man in the management on 18.04.2011 with a salary of Rs.38,500/- per month. While so, the management found that, during the course of employment, the workman had also worked in private functions by doing videography for marriages and other functions without the permissions of the management, thereby, his service was terminated. Challenging the same, the workman had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in O.P.No.176 of 2019 and the Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of termination till the date of award without attendant benefits

¶36

of the non-employment period. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petitions have been filed before this Court.

¶37

4. When these matters are taken up for hearing today, the learned

¶38

counsel appearing for the management as well as the workman fairly submitted that, the issue involved in these writ petitions has been settled in

¶39

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022

¶41

between the parties and the management has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the workman/A.Sathish, as one time settlement in addition

¶42

to Gratuity and Provident Fund.

¶43

5. In view of the above settlement arrived between the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following terms :-

¶44

(i) the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in full quit to the workman/A.Sathish, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶45

(ii) If the management has block listed the workman, that may be removed, enabling the workman to get other job.

¶46

6. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

¶47

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

27.07.2023

¶49

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp

¶50

¶51

4/6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022

¶54

The III Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶55

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022

¶57

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.Nos.5065 & 10258 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.5177 of 2022

¶60

27.07.2023

¶61

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Management v. Sathish a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. Sathish a

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 Management Vs v.John

K.Karunakaran, Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour II

Day N Day Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund

K.Appadurai Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management of v.R.Spinning Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer