Partly allowed

The Management of Tamil Nadu v. P.Kamaraj

Madras HC1 Apr 2024WP/17828/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a transport corporation challenging a labour court order directing payment of back wages. The High Court held that since the respondent was in judicial custody and his license was withheld, back wages were not payable for that period. The order was modified to restrict back wages to the period after license restoration until reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; Labour Court order modified to direct payment of back wages from 10.03.2015 to 14.07.2016 only.

The Management of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Kamaraj — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.17828 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN W.P.No.17828 of 2019 and WMP.No.17226 of 2019

¶6

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Zone) Limited, No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr.P.Kamaraj, Son of Ponnu, Govindapuram Village and Post, Oothangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 307.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in ID.No.61 of 2014 and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arun for Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan For Respondent : Ms.V.Porkodi for Mr.R.Krishnaswamy

¶12

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

W.P.No.17828 of 2019

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in ID.No.61 of 2014 and to quash the same.

¶17

2. The respondent/Mr.P.Kamaraj had joined the petitioner, Tamil

¶18

Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Zone) Limited Corporation as a driver on 09.07.2011. On 25.10.2013 when he was driving bus bearing TN 38 N 2454 in the route Singanallur – Gandhipuram, near Lakshmi Mills Junction an accident has taken place between the bus being driven by the petitioner and Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN 40 F 0879 in which one person died. A criminal case was registered and the respondent was remanded to the judicial custody by the police for causing death of a person. After release from the judicial custody the Respondent has approached the concerned Branch Manager seeking employment but he was denied employment. The respondent submitted representation but there was no proper response from the petitioner corporation, thereby the Respondent has raised industrial dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the ID Act, 1947, before the Labour Court in ID No.61 of 2014 dated 17.08.2018 seeking to set aside the

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

W.P.No.17828 of 2019

¶22

dismissal order dated 09.11.2013 passed by the respondent/Management against the petitioner and to direct the respondent/Management to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. Said ID was disposed off on 17.09.2018 observed that the Respondent was already reinstated by the petitioner corporation on 15.07.2016, and thereby directed the petitioner corporation to provide continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits for the period from 18.04.2014 to 14.07.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner corporation has preferred this writ petition.

¶23

3. Heard both sides and perused all the available materials on record including impugned order.

¶24

4. The respondent was reinstated by the petitioner corporation with effect from 15.07.2016, and given continuity of service, therefore, the only point that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled for the back wages, and other attendant benefits.

¶25

5. According to the petitioner corporation, the direction given by the Labour Court in the impugned order to pay the back wages and attendant benefits from 18.04.2014 to 14.07.2016 is erroneous. After respondent has committed the accident on 25.10.2013, the Human

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

W.P.No.17828 of 2019

¶29

Resource Development Officer of the petitioner corporation has took the driving license of the respondent and it was not returned. WP.No.6607 of 2015 was filed by the respondent was allowed on 10.03.2015 and authority was directed to return original driving liscense to the respondent.

¶30

6. As per the orders of this Court in WP.No.6607 of 2015 dated 10.03.2015, from the date of the accident, the respondent could not attend the duty as he was in judicial custody. In the meanwhile his driving liscense was restored as per the orders of this Court dated 10.03.2015. Therefore, the period from the date of accident i.e., 25.10.2014 to the date of restoration of license i.e., 10.03.2015.

¶31

7. In view of the above, since the respondent was already reinstated in the petitioner corporation with continuity of service, this petition stands disposed off by modifying the orders of the Labour Court in ID.No.61 of 2014 dated 17.09.2018 directing the petitioner to pay the back wages from 10.03.2015 to 14.07.2016 instead of 18.04.2014 to 14.07.2016, as quickly as possible not later than eight (8) weeks from the dated of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition also stands closed.

¶32

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

W.P.No.17828 of 2019

Index

Index :Yes/No Speaking :Yes/No Neutral Citation Case:Yes/No nst

¶37

01.04.2024

¶38

DR D.NAGARJUN,J. nst

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

W.P.No.17828 of 2019

¶42

W.P.No.17828 of 2019 and WMP.No.17226 of 2019

¶43

01.04.2024

¶44

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

¶45

The Management of Tamil Nadu v. P.Kamaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Tamil Nadu v. P.Kamaraj

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 The Presiding Officer

A.Subbulammal, Vs Corporation of Chennai

N.Dhandayuthabani, Vs The Managing Director

The Regional Manager, Vs the Joint Commissioner of Labour/

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. Vs the Assistant Pf Commissioner

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. Vs the Assistant Pf Commissioner