The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a bank's management challenging a Labour Court award. The award mandated the payment of dues to a retired Manager based on an industrial settlement. The Court found no perversity in the award and held that the settlement governed the payment.
Writ petition dismissed; Connected M.P. closed; Costs made easy.
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.
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.No.34690 of 2012 and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
The Special Officer/The Management of Cuddalore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Beach Road, Cuddalore – 607 001.
....Petitioner
Vs.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records of the second respondent relating to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 26.06.2012 in C.P.No.58 of 2010 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Arumugam For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Court
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 26.06.2012
Labour Court, Cuddalore (for brevity 'the Labour Court') in the claim petition in C.P.No.58 of 2010.
Page No.1 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
For the sake of clarity and convenience, the petitioner and the first
respondent will be referred to as Management and Manger respectively.
2.1 The workman was employed as a Manager in the Management and retired from service on 31.08.1997 and all the retirement benefits were paid to the Manager by the Management. But at the time of settlement of the retirement benefits an excess amount of Rs.15,677/- was paid to the Manager.
2.2. While so, after a span of three years, the Manager sent a
notice claiming that an amount of Rs.40,464/- was retained by the Management and requested them to settle the same.
2.3. Thereafter, the Management sent a reply stating that the Manager was not entitled for the said claim amount. Further, the Manager filed a claim petition C.P.No.58 of 2010 and the Labour Court by order dated 26.06.2012 allowed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Management has filed this writ petition.
Page No.2 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
designation of 'Manager' and not as a workman and hence, he was outside
the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity in short “The I.D.Act”). The Manager while he was working in the Management had received Rs.15,000/- as salary and he was not a workman and further, he had received all his retirement benefits without any objections.
that the Labour Court failed to see that the salary paid to the Manager was only Rs.9,443/- but by mistake it was paid as Rs.9,730/-. Therefore, based on this calculation, the Manager is entitled for only Rs.6,323/- and not Rs.22,000/- as claimed by him and hence, the order passed by the Labour Court, in C.P.No.58 of 2010 is liable to be quashed.
notice was sent to the respondents but there is no appearance on behalf of them and their names were also printed in the cause list.
Page No.3 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
working as a Manager and also he worked as a Clerk and he already retired from service in the year 1997. The Manager was settled with an amount of Rs.2,19,394/- towards provident fund, out of the leave pay salary of Rs.1,14,743/- an amount of Rs.74,279/- was paid to the Manager and the remaining amount of Rs.40,464/- was retained by the Management under various heads viz., Rs.2,000/- as P.F. adjustment, Rs.14,400/towards income tax, Rs.1,064/- staff bank due and Rs.22,000/- advance repayable. Further, the Management has not informed to the Manager as to why the said amount was retained and the said amount was also not settled so far.
was not working as a workman and he does not comes under the purview of the I.D.Act. Per contra, the Management in its counter affidavit filed
Page No.4 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
before the Labour Court had admitted that the retirement benefits to the Manager was also calculated as per the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act, 1947. The Manager's actual salary was Rs.9,443/- but he was paid an amount of Rs.9,730/- and received a differential salary of Rs.10,503/- whereas difference in gratuity is Rs.3,838/- with salary difference is Rs.1,336/- totaling to a tune of Rs.15,677/-. Therefore, after deducting an amount of Rs.15,677/- from the claim amount of Rs.22,000/the amount payable to the workman is only Rs.6,323/- and hence, the management is liable to pay only the said amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
of Rs.15,677/- was paid to the Manager in excess and hence, the Management is ready to pay the balance sum of Rs.6,323/- to him.
the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3), ibid, an amount of Rs.6,09,873/- was paid to him as retirement benefits in which an amount of Rs.22,000/- was not paid to the Manager. There is no reason stated by the Management as to why the said amount was not paid when no excess amount was calculated as per the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3), ibid, while settling the retirement benefits to the Manager.
Page No.6 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
passed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore are apparently perverse and shocks the conscience of this Court. On going through the records, this Court finds that there is no infirmity or perversity in the award under challenge.
case, accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. Costs made easy.
21.12.2024
vca Index : Yes/No Citation : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No
Page No.7 of 8
W.P.No.34690 of 2012
P.DHANABAL,J.
vca
W.P.No.34690 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
21.12.2024
Page No.8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court's award ordering payment of outstanding retirement benefits to a retired Manager was perverse.
Whether the petitioner can claim the excluded amount from the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Special Officer/The Management of Cuddalore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
V.Karuppan
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore
P.DHANABAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
