In this intra-court appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal against an order rejecting the appellant's claim for arrears. The single judge had held that the claim was barred by delay and required adjudication of disputed facts regarding reversion and absorption as an industrial dispute.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
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.
WA(MD)No.2381 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
WA(MD)No.2381 of 2024
D.Chandran
... Appellant
vs.
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 26.04.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.9279 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Jeyaram For R1 : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
JUDGMENT
( Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
26.04.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.9279 of 2013. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 4
WA(MD)No.2381 of 2024
operative Federation, the appellant / writ petitioner, who was originally appointed as a Typist, was reverted back to the Last Grade Servant on 27.11.1987. It is the case of the appellant that though he was reverted as Last Grade Servant, the work of Typist was being extracted from him. Thereafter, in the year 1997, when the post of Typist was sanctioned, he was promoted to the said post. With such a claim, he had filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (ID Act), claiming the salary for the period between his reversion and absorption, that is, between December 1987 and 18.12.1992. The Management disputed the appellant's entitlement to the claim.
the wages during the period between December 1987 and 18.12.1992 is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 4
WA(MD)No.2381 of 2024
disputed set of facts, which may require adjudication. Under Section 33-
C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, only the amounts which can be quantified and computed in terms of money alone can be entertained by the Labour Court. Disputed claims requires to be adjudicated as an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of ID Act. Thus, the filing of the application itself would not be maintainable, in view of the disputed claim made.
(M.S.R, J.) (A.D.M.C, J.) Index : Yes / No 28.11.2024 Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page No.3 of 4
WA(MD)No.2381 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN WA(MD)No.2381 of 2024 DATED : 28.11.2024
Page No.4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can claim arrears of salary for a disputed period after failing to challenge the reversion order within the limitation period.
Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain a claim involving disputed facts of reversion and promotion under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D. Chandran
The Management, The Tamilnadu Consumers Cooperative Federation Limited
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai
M.S. RAMESH
A.D. MARIA CLETE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
