Dismissed

The Management v. K.Arumugam

Madras HC20 Sept 2024WP/26166/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an interim award directed against the petitioner for depositing 50% of wages. The Court held that the petitioner failed to submit a calculation statement proving the full award was settled via prior back wage payments, thus allowing no grounds to quash the order.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The Management Vs K.Arumugam — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No.26166 of 2011 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.7005 of 2011, M.P.Nos.1 of 2011, 1 of 2012 and 1 of 2015

¶8

The Management, State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioner

¶9

/vs/

¶10

K.Arumugam 2. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in C.P.No.277/2011 dated 12.08.2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai / Second respondent herein and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Kathiresan For R1 ... Mr.J.Saravanavel R2 ... Labour Court

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai / Second respondent in C.P.No.277/2011 dated 12.08.2011.

¶18

The above Computation Petition has been filed by the first

¶19

respondent in pursuant to the award passed in his favour in I.D.No.22 of 1998 on 13.12.2007. In an Industrial Dispute raised by the first respondent, an award came to be passed for reinstatement along with full back wages

¶20

and all other benefits. In fact on 18.02.2014 this Court has passed the following order:

¶21

“ 5. Considering the above facts and taking note of the earlier direction issued by the Court directing the Labour Court to compute wages and the petitioner being out of employment since 1995, interest of justice would require that the petitioner should be put on certain terms. Accordingly, the order of interim stay already granted is modified with a direction to the petitioner / Management to deposit 50% of the amount computed by the Labour Court to the credit of C.P.No.277 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai / second respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

¶25

workman will be entitled to withdraw the same by filing proper application before the Labour Court.”

¶26

As per the above order it is claimed by the petitioner that they

¶27

deposited 50% of the award amount as computed by Labour Court in C.P.No.277 of 2011. However the records does not show whether the petitioner has complied the above condition.

¶28

Mr.K.Kathiresan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

¶29

that when the first respondent was reinstated, certain amount has been paid towards back wages and that has to be appropriated towards the award passed by the Labour Court.

¶30

If the amount paid by the petitioner Management to the first respondent towards back wages, no doubt the above amount will be appropriated against the award made in the Computation Petition. But the petitioner did not file any calculation statement to show that the entire award amount has been settled or that the computation of the Labour Court in respect of the back wages and consequential determination of the

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

¶34

amount in the impugned award, is incorrect. In the absence of any materials, I do not find any grounds to allow the writ petition.

¶35

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected

¶36

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

20.09.2024

¶38

Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order bkn

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

¶42

To:

¶43

The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

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

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

R.N.MANJULA ,J.

bkn

W.P.No.26166 of 2011

20.09.2024

Page 6 of 6

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

The Management v. K.Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. K.Arumugam

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

The Management Vs The Appellate Authority

J.N.Ranganathan Vs the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

G.Krithika Vs S.P.Chitra

M.Nallasamy Vs The Director

Chemoil Advanced Management Vs Appellate Authority/ Deputy