Dismissed

The Management of v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC15 Jul 2024WP/9242/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Labour Court award of back wages. The Court held that as the employee was deemed to be in service due to the absence of dismissal orders, and the petitioner offered no contra evidence, the award of Rs.2,21,501 was sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs awarded to the respondents.

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.9242 of 2010 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.30572 of 2016

¶8

The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶12

2.Shri.B.Natarajan ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records concerning with the C.P.No.387 of 2004 dated 07.09.2004 on the file of the 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same.

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : M/s.M/s.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : M/s.S.T.Varadarajulu [R2] : M/s.V.Jeevagiridharan [R2]

1/6

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

O R D E R

The petitioner Management has filed the above writ petition challenging the award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in Claim Petition No.387 of 2004 in and by which the 1^st respondent had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,501/- to the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

The 2^nd respondent had joined the services of the petitioner on 01.03.1985. On 31.08.2002 he was dismissed from services on the ground of unauthorized absence. Thereafter, on 09.01.2003 once again a dismissal order was passed on the very same ground and the petitioner had filed an Approval Petition No.31/2003 which was rejected on 12.01.2004. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was reinstated on 14.04.2004. The petitioner had issued a third dismissal order on the

¶21

very same ground on 06.05.2004 and A.P.No.183/2004 was filed to approve the dismissal. This was rejected on 11.08.2004 and on 30.08.2004, the 2^nd respondent was once again reinstated.

¶22

Meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent had filed C.P.No.387/2004

¶23

claiming back wages for non-employment period. The only defence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

¶26

pleaded by the petitioner was that despite offering employment, the 2^nd respondent had not rejoined duty pursuant to the reinstatement order dated 14.04.2004.

¶27

Before the 1^st respondent, Labour Court both side had not examined any witnesses. On the side of the workman, the 2^nd respondent herein Ex.P.1 to P.9 were marked. However, on the side of the petitioner Management, no documents were marked.

¶28

Ultimately, the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai held that

¶29

since there was no dismissal order, the petitioner is deemed to be in service and therefore eligible for back wages and allowed the claim petition directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,501/- to the 2^nd respondent. It is challenging this order that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as

¶31

per the petitioner's statement of account only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-

¶32

and odd was payable to the 2^nd respondent. However, the petitioner

¶33

has not chosen to let in any evidence whatsoever before the Labour https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/6

¶35

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

¶36

Court to prove the same. The Labour Court had taken into account Ex.P.1, the salary certificate of the 2nd respondent and calculated the back wages based on this salary certificate.

¶37

Considering the fact that the petitioner has not filed any contra evidence, the petitioner cannot now challenge the order passed

¶38

by the Labour Court which has been passed after considering the

¶39

available evidence on record and that too after the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that in the absence of dismissal order, it is deemed that the 2^nd respondent has been in service. Therefore, the order passed by the 1^st respondent is very much in order and I see no reason to interfere with the same.

¶40

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶41

15.07.2024

¶42

(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶43

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

4/6

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

1.The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶48

2.The Presiding Officer,

¶49

1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶50

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

5/6

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

P.T. ASHA. J.,

(shr)

W.P.No.9242 of 2010

¶56

15.07.2024 (1/3)

¶57

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

¶58

6/6

The Management of v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Manmatharaj Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

P.Dhanasekaran, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Management, Vs The Special Deputy

M.Tamilarasi, Vs The Member Secretary

Ms.K.Roseline Geetha, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajendran Vs The District Collector