Disposed

M.Sampath, S/o.S.Mahalingam, v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC26 Jul 2023WP/6987/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a Labour Court award and reinstatement. Finding the petitioner had superannuated at an alternate job, the Court refused interference but directed the management to pay terminal benefits with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The second respondent is directed to pay terminal benefits with 6% interest within four weeks.

M.Sampath, S/o.S.Mahalingam, Vs The Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

M.Sampath

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶11

The Management, Saroja Mills, Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641 005. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the preliminary order dated 16.04.2013 and the final award dated 22.12.2015, passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.103 of 2003, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajoy Khose For Respondents : R1 - Court Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed for R2

¶14

_________ Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the

¶19

preliminary order dated 16.04.2013 and the final award dated 22.12.2015

¶20

passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.103 of 2003, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent / Management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

¶21

2. The petitioner is an employee of the second respondent / Management was transferred from one unit to another unit. However, the petitioner in defiance to the transfer order did not join in the transferred place of work which was considered as disobedience and against the Standing Orders of the Management, he was terminated from service. Against the said termination, the petitioner has filed an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.103 of 2003 before the Labour Court to set aside the punishment and direct the second respondent / Management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits.

¶22

_________ Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

¶25

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was employed in alternate job and subsequently superannuated. However, the terminal benefits due to the petitioner for the period of his employment in the second respondent / Management is yet to be settled. The petitioner would be satisfied, if the same is settled by the second respondent / Management.

¶26

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second

¶27

respondent / Management submitted that the second respondent / Management is ready and willing to pay the terminal benefits for the period of his employment with the Management at the earliest possible time.

¶28

5. I have considered the said submissions mad by the learned

¶29

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶30

_________ Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

¶33

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere after the dismissal and had subsequently superannuated, the impugned award need not be interfered with. However, the second respondent / Management is directed to pay the terminal benefits due to the petitioner for the period of his employment with the second respondent / Management within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with 6% interest from the date of dismissal till the date of award.

¶34

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

26.07.2023

¶36

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji

¶37

_________ Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

¶40

¶41

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶42

The Management, Saroja Mills, Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641 005.

¶43

_________ Page 5 of 6

¶44

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

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

vji

W.P.No.6987 of 2017

¶49

26.07.2023

¶50

_________ Page 6 of 6

¶51

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

M.Sampath, S/o.S.Mahalingam, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sampath, S/o.S.Mahalingam, 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

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

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

M/s. Sail Refractory Company Vs Union of India

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