Dismissed¶39

V.Badrinath v. The Managing Director

Madras HC7 Aug 2025WA(MD)/953/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TWAD Board pay refixation; extension of Labour Court award I.D.No.147 of 1993 (Tirunelveli) to Helper employees; arrears confined to three years preceding writ petitions; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347; concession by senior counsel for Board; G.O.Ms.No.762 dated 26.08.1986; 6% interest; writ appeals by Board and by employees both dismissed; twelve-week compliance; Clause XV Letters Patent writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

No relief to any appellant; the learned Single Judge's direction stands - the Board is to revise pay per G.O.Ms.No.762 dated 26.08.1986 with arrears from 03.11.2017 and 6% interest, compliance within twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. ¶39

V.Badrinath Vs The Managing Director — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeals filed by the TWAD Board against the learned Single Judge's order directing extension of the Labour Court award benefits to the employees should succeed. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

The Board's writ appeals fail on a short ground: its senior counsel conceded the writ petitioners' entitlement to extension of the benefit conferred by the Labour Court award.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The three-year cut-off fixed by the learned Single Judge, adopted in following the Supreme Court's dictum in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, does not warrant interference.

¶38

Key takeaways

The time for compliance of the learned Single Judge's order by the Board is twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the appellate order.ratio¶38
All the writ appeals, including those filed by the writ petitioners against the disallowed portion (seeking refixation from dates of appointment), were dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (G.R. Swaminathan & K. Rajasekar, JJ.; common judgment by G.R. Swaminathan, J.) - TWAD Board employees who joined as Helpers sought extension of the Labour Court award in I.D.No.147 of 1993 (Labour Court, Tirunelveli) with refixation of scale of pay and monetary benefits; the learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.03.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.15441 of 2020, directed pay revision per G.O.Ms.No.762 dated 26.08.1986 with arrears from 03.11.2017 and 6% interest. The Board's writ appeals were dismissed, its senior counsel having conceded the employees' entitlement to the award benefits. The three-year cut-off on arrears was upheld as squarely following State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347. The employees' cross-appeals seeking refixation from their dates of appointment were also dismissed. Compliance ordered within twelve weeks; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)Nos.953 of 2025 & batch

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A.(MD)Nos.953, 954, 955, 956, 957 of 2025 and W.A.(MD)Nos.1333, 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10443, 14376, 14377, 14378 & 14379 of 2024

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.953 of 2025:-

V.Badrinath

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamaraj Salai,

¶13

Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

¶14

2.The Chief Engineer,

¶15

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Eswari Nagar, Medical College Road, Thanjavur.

¶16

3.The Superintendent Engineer,

¶17

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Trichy-Pudukottai-Ariyalur-Perambalur Circle, J.K.Nagar, Kajamalai Post, Trichy-23.

¶18

1/7

¶19

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

¶20

W.A.(MD)Nos.953 of 2025 & batch

¶21

4.The Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Trichy.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.15441 of 2020 dated 26.03.2024 on the file of this Court.

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, For Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan.

¶26

COMMON JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶27

The writ petitions were filed by the employees of Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai. The writ petitioners had joined the Board as Helpers. They filed the writ petitions for directing the Board to extend the benefit of the award of the Labour Court passed in I.D.No.147 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in their favour and to re-fix their scale of pay and pay all the attendant and monetary benefits. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

¶28

2/7

¶29

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

¶30

W.A.(MD)Nos.953 of 2025 & batch

¶31

“22. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to revise the pay of the petitioners in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.762, dated 26.08.1986 and calculate the arrears with effect from 03.11.2017 payable to them and pay the same together with interest at the rate of 6% as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, TWAD Board filed W.A.(MD)Nos.1333, 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941 of 2024. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved that the grant of benefit was confined to the period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions. According to them, re-fixation should be done with effect from the dates of their appointment. In respect of dis-allowed portion, W.A.(MD)Nos.953, 954, 955, 956 and 957 of 2025 have been filed by the writ petitioners.

¶33

2.The writ appeals filed by the Board will have to be dismissed on

¶34

a short ground. The learned senior counsel who appeared for the Board conceded the entitlement of the writ petitioners herein for extension of the benefit conferred by the Labour Court award.

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.A.(MD)Nos.953 of 2025 & batch

¶38

3.As regards the cut off date of three years fixed by the learned Single Judge, it is seen that the learned Single Judge had only followed the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava) . The approach adopted by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference. The time for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge by the Board is twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

4.These writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 07.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶41

4/7

¶42

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

¶43

W.A.(MD)Nos.953 of 2025 & batch

¶44

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