Dismissed

The Management v. M.Saravanan

Madras HC11 Sept 2024WP/7814/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that held an employee illegally terminated due to misconduct. The Court affirmed the finding of employment based on wage slips and dismissed the challenge regarding the nature of engagement.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Labour Court award confirming illegal termination and granting lump-sum compensation confirmed.

The Management Vs M.Saravanan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶7

The Management Bright Gas Services, No.1996/B, Trichy Road, Krishna Colony, Central Studio-(Opp), Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641 005. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

M.Saravanan ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No.76 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore and quash the award dated 21.06.2023.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad For Respondent : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

¶12

1/8

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award of the learned

¶17

Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore, made in I.D.No.76 of 2020 dated 21.06.2023.

¶18

2 . Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

3 . The respondent has raised an industrial dispute by alleging that

¶20

he has been illegally terminated. In appreciating the materials available on record, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the termination

¶21

was illegal and granted the relief of lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest.

¶22

4 . Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

submitted that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the materials before arriving at the conclusion that the respondent is not the workman of

¶24

the petitioner. He further submitted that the difference in the wage slips 2/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶27

produced by the petitioner would be construed as the wages payable to him

¶28

for each month in accordance with the number of cylinders delivered by him. He further submitted that the ESI Card given to the respondent is only te mporary in nature and hence, that should not have been taken into consideration. It is further submitted that in view of the repeated complaints received by the petitioner against the respondent, that he is demanding illegal gratification from the customers, he stopped his services, but the Labour Court has omitted to consider the above aspects.

¶29

5 . Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, especially the wage slips, for arriving at the conclusion that the respondent is the workman of the petitioner and that he has been terminated illegally.

¶30

6 . The matter lies i n a very narrow campus and it revolves around

¶31

the point of whether the Labour Court is right in arriving at the conclusion

¶32

that the respondent is the employee of the petitioner in his capacity as delivery boy. The fact that the petitioner is rendering the services of the

¶33

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

¶34

3/8

¶35

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶36

delivery boy was not denied, but the petitioner has made a claim that he had engaged the services of the respondent only on a per-cylinder charge basis and not on a salary basis. Curiously, the petitioner did not agitate the above point before the Labour Court and this stand has been first taken up before this Court. Fortunately, the petitioner did not dispute the genuineness of the wage slips (Ex.W.2) and hence, I do not find any short sighted reasons in appreciating the above materials for arriving at the conclusion that the respondent is very much an employee of the petitioner.

¶37

7 . Coming to the next point of illegal termination orally, it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent was in the habit of getting illegal gratification from the customers during the festival occasions and hence, his services were stopped. Once it is established before the Court that the petitioner is the employer of the respondent in the event of any misconduct noticed against the respondent, there is an obligation on the petitioner to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings before sending him out on dismissal.

¶38

4/8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶41

8 . The petitioner's witness, M.W.1 himself has admitted in his evidence that the respondent has been orally terminated and that is sufficient to prove the fact that the respondent has been illegally terminated without notice and without following the due procedure. Hence, the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the materials and arrived at a conclusion by recording a finding that the respondent is the workman under the petitioner's management and he has been illegally terminated.

¶42

9 . For the reasons best known to the learned Presiding Officer, it is felt that lumpsum compensation will meet the ends of justice instead of reinstatement and hence, ordered lumpsum compensation. In fact, the respondent did not have any grievance and he did not file any writ petition challenging the above relief. Hence, there cannot be any difficulty for the petitioner to comply the order of the Labour Court.

¶43

10 . In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the award of the learned Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore, i n I.D.No.76 of 2020 dated 21.06.2023 is confirmed and the time for payment

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶47

is extended for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

11.09.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶49

sri

¶50

6/8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶53

¶54

The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶55

7/8

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶58

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶59

sri

¶60

W.P.No.7814 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8755 of 2024

¶61

11.09.2024

¶62

8/8

¶63

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

The Management v. M.Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. M.Saravanan

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 Karur Textile Manufacturer Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Kamala(died) Vs Chittammal

The Special Officer Vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

N.M.Santhi Vs Thiru. C.Belraj

The Management Vs v.Srinivasan

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer