The New India Assurance Vs the Central Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The New India Assurance Vs the Central Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent (P. Vijayaraghunathan) was in continuous employment for 240 days in 12 calendar months, rendering the management's termination/non-provision of employment after 16.6.2001 unjustified for want of compliance with Section 25 F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the workman was in continuous employment for 240 days in 12 calendar months: it rested on the Management's own documents (Ext.W8 and Ext.W10 recommending regularisation of the second respondent's services), the Management having produced not a single supporting document before the Tribunal.

Ratio / Principle

In light of the above observations (including that the Management had canvassed no grounds demonstrating perversity before the learned Single Judge), this Court found no merits warranting interference with the award as passed on by the Writ Court, and dismissed the writ appeal.

Key takeaways

The Court distinguished Bala Vijayakumar (Co-ordinate Bench, W.A.No.2723 of 2023 dated 13.08.2024): in that case the issue was entitlement to reinstatement together with back wages and the Co-ordinate Bench had modified the order directing lump-sum compensation; those facts were held not applicable to the present appeal, thereby leaving intact the 50% back-wage restriction with continuity of service.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Division Bench (M.S. RAMESH, J. and R. SAKTHIVEL, J.) — W.A.No.1357 of 2015, decided 09.09.2025 (judgment by M.S. RAMESH, J.): Dismisses The New India Assurance Company Ltd.'s appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the learned Single Judge's order dated 10.02.2015 in W.P.No.24773 of 2006, which had confirmed the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court — namely, that workman P. Vijayaraghunathan had worked continuously for 240 days in 12 calendar months and that the termination effected without following the procedure under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was blameworthy — while restricting back wages to 50% with continuity of service. The 240-day finding was anchored in the Management's own documents Ext.W8 and Ext.W10 recommending regularisation; the Management produced no documents before the Tribunal and showed no perversity before the Single Judge. Counsel's reliance on Bala Vijayakumar vs. The Presiding Officer and another (Co-ordinate Bench, W.A.No.2723 of 2023 dated 13.08.2024) to argue for lump-sum compensation in lieu of back wages was rejected as the facts there were not applicable. Appeal dismissed, no costs.

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.09.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. By its Assistant General Manager, 770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, “B” Wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006 2.P.Vijayaraghunathan

... Respondents

PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to

set aside the order dated 10.02.2015 made in W.P.No.24773 of 2006 passed by this Court.

Page 1 of 6

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

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

For Appellant : Mr.V.Perumal For Respondents : R1- Labour Court R2 – No Appearance

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.24773 of 2006 dated 10.02.2015.

2.The point of reference before the Industrial Tribunal was as follows:

“Whether the action of the management of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in not providing employment after 16.6.2001 to Shri P.Vijayaraghunathan is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?”

3.Based on the oral and documentary evidences produced by the concerned workman / the second respondent herein, the Industrial Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the second respondent had worked continuously for 240 days in 12 calendar months and therefore, had found

Page 2 of 6

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

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

fault with the termination effected by the appellant herein without following the procedure contemplated under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4.The challenge to the award of the Industrial Tribunal, made before the learned Single Judge, was also rejected, through the orders passed in W.P.No.24773 dated 10.02.2015. However, the learned Single Judge, while confirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal, restricted the back wages to 50% while granting continuity of service. This order passed in the Writ Petition is assailed before us.

5.Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the Industrial Tribunal had wrongly come to the conclusion that the second respondent had worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months. By placing reliance on the evidences adduced by the second respondent, he contended that the second respondent was only a part-time employee and not in continuous employment. This apart, he would submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded compensation instead of granting 50% back wages, for which purpose he relied upon the decision of a Co-ordinate

Page 3 of 6

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

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

of

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2723 of 2023 dated 13.08.2024 in the case

of Bala Vijayakumar vs. The Presiding Officer and another.

6.The Industrial Tribunal had placed reliance on the documentary evidences let in by the second respondent herein, more particularly on Ext.W8 and Ext.W10, wherein the Management itself appeared to have recommended for regularisation of the second respondent's services. Before the Industrial Tribunal, not a single document was produced on the part of the Management, to substantiate their case. It is in this background, that the Industrial Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the concerned workman was in continuous employment for 240 days in 12 calendar months.

7.Before the learned Single Judge, the Management had not canvassed any grounds to demonstrate perversity in the award of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, had therefore, examined the evidence available on record and concluded that no interference with the award was warranted. However, the back wages were modified and restricted to 50%.

Insofar as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Bala

Page 4 of 6

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

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

Vijayakumar's case is concerned, the issue therein was as to whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement together with back wages. On such facts, the Co-ordinate Bench, in that context, had modified the order by directing the Management to pay the lump sum compensation. The facts involved in Bala Vijayakumar's case may not be applicable to the present appeal.

8.In the light of the above observation, we do not find any merits

that may warrant inference to the award passed in the Writ Court.

9.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.

[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J] 09.09.2025

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

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

Page 5 of 6

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

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Anu

To

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, “B” Wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006

W.A.No.1357 of 2015

09.09.2025

Page 6 of 6

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