Disposed

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. v. the Assistant Pf Commissioner

Madras HC1 Apr 2024WP/8477/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management challenged an Industrial Tribunal award granting Rs.15 lakhs per workman in lieu of reinstatement; workmen sought interim payment for sustenance. The court declined to order full deposit, granted Rs.40,000 per workman as interim relief, with Rs.5,000 monthly thereafter if not disposed of by January 2025.

What did the court decide?

Rs.40,000 per workman as interim sustenance relief, payable before 03.01.2025; Rs.5,000 per month thereafter if petitions remain pending; interim stay made absolute.

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. Vs the Assistant… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.29266, 29269, 9528 & 41061 of 2024

¶8

Nirvagam, Tamil Nadu Minsara Variam

¶9

Chennai – 600 002

¶10

Rep. By its Chief Engineer/Personnel.

¶11

Ennore Thermal Power Station Chennai 600 057 Petitioners in Rep. By its Superintending Engineer/Civil .. W.P.No.8577 of 2024

¶12

M.K.Parthasarathy

¶13

K.Nainiyappan

¶14

V.Munusamy

¶15

G.Baskar

¶16

G.Gajendiran

¶17

S.Ramalingam

¶18

M.Palani

¶19

P.Chenniah

¶20

P.Ravikumar

¶21

P.Varatharajulu

¶22

T.Nagarajan

¶23

M.Kannan

¶24

N.Sekar

¶25

K.Karunakaran

¶26

K.N.Kuppan

¶27

J.Esaiyan

¶28

A.Meerankani

¶29

J.Chennadurai

¶30

V.M.Palani

¶31

S.Palayam

¶32

R.Karuppiah

¶33

Page 1 of 12

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶36

M.Gopi

¶37

M.Gopi 23. S.Velayudam 24. M.Nagalingam 25. D.Saravanan 26. V.P.Sekar 27. M.Gajendiran 28. P.Palani 29. S.Selvam 30. G.Ramakrishnan 31. E.Perumal 32. G.Guna Sundari (Legal Heir of K.Subramanian) 33. S.Senthil Kumar (Legal Heir of K.Subramanian) 34. R.Ambika (Legal Heir of K.Subramanian) 35. N.Kumar (Legal Heir of C.Nagalingam) 36. A.Nagajothi (Legal Heir of C.Nagalingam) 37. S.Vijayalakshmi (Legal Heir of P.Solaiyappan) 38. S.Vivek (Legal Heir of P.Solaiyappan) 39. K.Geetha (Legal Heir of P.Solaiyappan) 40. M.Moorthi (Legal Heir of P.Kanniyappan) 41. A.Vijaya (Legal Heir of P.Kanniyappan)

¶38

R.Santhi (Legal Heir of P.Kanniyappan)

¶39

B.Vijaya (Legal Heir of R.Baskar)

¶40

B.Tamilselvan (Legal Heir of R.Baskar)

¶41

B.Ravikumar (Legal Heir of R.Baskar)

¶42

T.Arockia Mary (Legal Heir of T.Right)

¶43

T.Albert Right (Legal Heir of T.Right)

¶44

B.Kasthuri Bai (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman)

¶45

B.Anandhan (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman)

¶46

M.Punithavathi (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman)

¶47

B.Premkumar (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman)

¶48

R.S.Baskar (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan)

¶49

V.Sasikala (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan)

¶50

V.Sathishkumar (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan)

¶51

R.Swoppna (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan)

¶52

K.Chinnaponnu (Legal Heir of M.Kanagu)

¶53

K.Kumar (Legal Heir of M.Kanagu)

¶54

K.Balaji (Legal Heir of M.Kanagu)

¶55

K.Jeyalakshmi (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 60. S.Latha (Legal Heir of L.Kannan)

¶56

____________ Page 2 of 12_

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶59

K.Bharathi (Legal Heir of L.Kannan)

¶60

S.Vinothani (Legal Heir of L.Kannan)

¶61

K.Gobi (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 64. G.Usha (Legal Heir of L.Kannan)

¶62

Petitioners in .. W.P.No.36828 of 2024

¶63

Vs.

¶64

Podhu Seyalalar Minvariya Oppandha Thozhilalar Sangam No.149, Thambu Chetti Street C.J. Complex, Chennai – 600 001.

¶65

Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Federation Registration No.2970, Rep. By its Secretary Ennore Thermal Power Station Ennore – Chennai 600 057.

¶66

M.K.Parthasarathy

¶67

K.Nainiyappan

¶68

V.Munusamy

¶69

G.Baskar

¶70

G.Gajendiran

¶71

S.Ramalingam

¶72

M.Palani 10. P.Chenniah

¶73

P.Ravikumar 12. P.Varatharajulu 13. T.Nagarajan

¶74

M.Kannan

¶75

N.Sekar

¶76

K.Karunakaran

¶77

K.N.Kuppan

¶78

J.Esaiyan

¶79

A.Meerankani

¶80

J.Chennadurai 21. V.M.Palani

¶81

S.Palayam 23. R.Karuppiah 24. M.Gopi

¶82

Page 3 of 12

¶83

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

¶84

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶85

S.Velayudam 26. M.Nagalingam 27. D.Saravanan 28. V.P.Sekar 29. M.Gajendiran 30. P.Palani 31. S.Selvam 32. G.Ramakrishnan 33. E.Perumal

¶86

[R3 to R33 impleaded vide order dated 28.06.2024 in W.M.P.No.19082 of 2024 in W.P.No.8577 of 2024]

¶87

G.Guna Sundari (Legal Heir of K.Subramanian) 35. S.Senthil Kumar (Legal Heir of K.Subramanian) 36. R.Ambika (Legal Heir of K.Subramanian) 37. N.Kumar (Legal Heir of C.Nagalingam) 38. A.Nagajothi (Legal Heir of C.Nagalingam) 39. S.Vijayalakshmi (Legal Heir of P.Solaiyappan) 40. S.Vivek (Legal Heir of P.Solaiyappan) 41. K.Geetha (Legal Heir of P.Solaiyappan)

¶88

M.Moorthi (Legal Heir of P.Kanniyappan) 43. A.Vijaya (Legal Heir of P.Kanniyappan) 44. R.Santhi (Legal Heir of P.Kanniyappan) 45. B.Vijaya (Legal Heir of R.Baskar) 46. B.Tamilselvan (Legal Heir of R.Baskar) 47. B.Ravikumar (Legal Heir of R.Baskar) 48. T.Arockia Mary (Legal Heir of T.Right)

¶89

T.Albert Right (Legal Heir of T.Right)

¶90

B.Kasthuri Bai (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman)

¶91

B.Anandhan (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman) 52. M.Punithavathi (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman) 53. B.Premkumar (Legal Heir of H.Balaraman)

¶92

R.S.Baskar (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan) 55. V.Sasikala (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan) 56. V.Sathishkumar (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan)

¶93

R.Swoppna (Legal Heir of M.R.Srinivasan) 58. K.Chinnaponnu (Legal Heir of M.Kanagu)

¶94

____________ Page 4 of 12_

¶95

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

¶96

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶97

K.Kumar (Legal Heir of M.Kanagu)

¶98

K.Balaji (Legal Heir of M.Kanagu) 61. K.Jeyalakshmi (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 62. S.Latha (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 63. K.Bharathi (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 64. S.Vinothani (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 65. K.Gobi (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 67. G.Usha (Legal Heir of L.Kannan) 68. P.V.Raja (Legal Heir of P.Vairakannu) 69. V.Gurunathan (Legal Heir of P.Vairakannu) 70. V.Veerakumar (Legal Heir of P.Vairakannu)

¶99

R34 to R70 impleaded vide order dated 13.12.2024 in W.M.P.No.41061 of 2024 Respondents in in W.P.No.8577 of 2024] .. W.P.No.8477 of 2024

¶100

Nirvagam, Tamil Nadu Minsara Variam Chennai – 600 002 Rep. By its Chief Engineer/Personnel.

¶101

Ennore Thermal Power Station Chennai 600 057.

¶102

Podhu Seyalalar Minvariya Oppandha Thozhilalar Sangam No.149, Thambu Chetti Street C.J. Complex, Chennai – 600 001.

¶103

Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Federation Registration No.2970 Rep. By its Secretary Ennore Thermal Power Station Respondents in Ennore – Chennai 600 057. ..W.P.No.36828 of 2024

¶104

Prayer in W.P.No.8577 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in ID No.45 of 2002 and quash its award dated 28.02.2024; and

¶105

____________ Page 5 of 12_

¶106

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

¶107

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶108

Prayer in W.P.No.36828 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D.No.45 of 2002, dated 28.02.2024, only insofar as (i) granting the relief of continuity of service with backwages; (ii) rejecting the claim of Thiru T.Right deceased (46^th petitioner) and Thiru V.P.Sekar (26^th petitioner) for reinstatement and absorption found in Serial No.415 and 417 to Annexure – 1 of the impugned Award and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to reinstate and absorb all the petitioners/workmen with effect from 05.01.1998 with seniority, continuity of service, full backwages and all other consequential monetary and attendant benefits.

¶109

For the Electricity Board : Mr.G.Anandagopalan for M/s.Agam Legal

¶110

For the Workmen : Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Christoper

¶111

COMMON ORDER

¶112

W.P.No.8577 of 2024 is filed by the Management, feeling aggrieved over the award of the Industrial Tribunal made in I.D.No.45 of 2002 dated 28.02.2024.

¶113

By the said award, in respect of 152 workmen, an award was passed directing the Management to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs each in lieu of their claim for reinstatement, backwages and other benefits. Against the same, W.P.No.8477 of 2024 is filed.

¶114

Page 6 of 12

¶115

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

¶116

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶117

An order of interim stay has been granted and is being periodically extended by this Court. While so, prayers are made by some of the individual employees in W.P.No.36828 of 2024 that further condition may be imposed upon the Management to at least pay them some amount. If the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement with backwages, the Management would have been in a position to pay the 17B wages.

¶118

4.1. It is argued by Mr.V.Prakash , learned Senior Counsel

¶119

appearing on behalf of the workmen that the same is a salutary principle that the workmen should be given something for sustenance, so that they need not argue the writ petition hungry. This is the reason why provision under Section 17B was also included in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶120

4.2. It is the prayer of the Mr.Ravichandran , learned counsel appearing for the workmen that the Management should be directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation, as ordered, and they must be permitted to withdraw the accrued interest every month.

¶121

Page 7 of 12

¶122

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

¶123

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶124

4.3. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that at least a portion of the compensation amount should be ordered to be withdrawn by the workmen so that they get some relief to get ready and argue the matters.

¶125

5.1. Per contra , Mr.G.Anandgopalan , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management would submit that the Electricity Board need not be directed to deposit the entire amount. Even if this Court holds in favour of the workmen, the amount is always realizable. Therefore, the question of deposit does not arise.

¶126

5.2. Considering the facts pleaded by the workmen that they should be provided with some amount for sustenance, a minimum amount can be ordered to be paid and he is ready to get along with the main writ petitions this month itself.

¶127

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of this case.

¶128

Page 8 of 12

¶129

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

¶130

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶131

7.1. In view of the fact that the Management is the Electricity Board and the financial difficulty is also pleaded, I am of the view that the Management need not be insisted to deposit the entire sum of Rs.15 lakhs at this stage itself. At the same time, the claim of the workmen that they should be provided with some amount for their sustenance should also be considered.

¶132

7.2. To consider what quantum of amount can be provided by way of an interim relief, I even consider the argument of the workmen, that if the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement instead of compensation, then this Court would have awarded 17B wages. All these workmen are said to have drawn wages around a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month and these writ petitions are filed in the month of March, 2024. That is the first consideration this Court takes into consideration. Secondly, if the entire amount of Rs.15 lakhs is deposited, the monthly interest would be somewhere around Rs.7,000/- per month. The said two factors are kept in mind.

¶133

7.3. Therefore, irrespective of whether the employee has attained the age of superannuation or not and irrespective of whether

¶134

____________ Page 9 of 12_

¶135

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

¶136

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶137

the employee is alive or the legal heirs are the beneficiaries, I am of the view that in respect of each of the workmen, as sustenance to argue the writ petitions, each of the employee could be paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of an interim relief. This less amount is ordered only considering the fact that the writ petitions are posted for final hearing on 03.01.2025 and that both the parties shall get along and the matters would be taken up for final disposal.

¶138

7.4. In the event the writ petitions are not disposed of in the month of January, 2025, from then on, each of the workmen (or their legal heirs together) would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- each for every month the writ petitions are kept pending. The interim stay is made absolute on the above conditions and the main writ petitions are posted for arguments on 03.01.2025.

¶139

7.5. It is needless to mention that the amount should be paid before the next hearing date, that is before 03.01.2025, so as to enable this Court to hear these matters for final disposal on 03.01.2025.

¶140

____________ Page 10 of 12_

¶141

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

¶142

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶143

7.6. The said order also covers the prayer made in other

¶144

miscellaneous petitions in these writ petitions such as miscellaneous petitions seeking stay, directions, vacate stay, which shall be treated as ordered as above.

¶145

W.M.P.No.41061 of 2024 is allowed and it is made clear that

¶146

the plea of the learned counsel for the Management that once these individual employees come on record, at least the second respondent can no more be a relevant party will be considered at the appropriate time.

¶147

13.12.2024

¶148

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶149

drm

¶150

Page 11 of 12

¶151

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

¶152

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024

¶153

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

¶154

(drm)

¶155

W.P.Nos.8477 & 36828 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.29266, 29269, 9528 & 19082 of 2024

¶156

13.12.2024

¶157

____________ Page 12 of 12_

¶158

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

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. v. the Assistant Pf Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. v. the Assistant Pf Commissioner

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

The Management of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Kamaraj