Disposed¶41

The Management v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC25 Feb 2025WP/20743/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Certiorari; Madras High Court; Labour Court award; I.D.No.41 of 2009; I Additional Labour Court Chennai; Industrial Disputes Act Section 25-F; termination without domestic enquiry; compensation in lieu of reinstatement; Rs.2 Lakhs full and final settlement; Office Assistant (Attender); school management; Jaigopal Garodia Matriculation Higher Secondary School; J.Deepak; writ petition disposed; M. Dhandapani J.; 25.02.2025; W.P.No.20743 of 2014.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no costs; petitioner directed to pay Rs.2 Lakhs (without interest) to the second respondent within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, if not already paid or deposited; connected miscellaneous petition M.P.No.1 of 2014 closed. ¶41

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.20743 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.20743 of 2014 And

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶8

The Management rep. by the Chairman Jaigopal Garodia Matriculation Higher Secondary School (A Union of JGVV Trust) S.R.P.Colony, 7^th Street, Chennai – 82 ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 104.

¶11

2.J.Deepak ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

¶14

issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.41 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 104 the first respondent herein, quash the award dated 10.03.2014 passed therein.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.20743 of 2014

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayakumar for M/s.M.R.Raghavan

¶19

For Respondents : R1 – Court R2 – NRN

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.41 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the award dated 10.03.2014.

¶22

2.The facts of the case is that the second respondent raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.41 of 2009 before the first respondent seeking reinstatement with all other attendant benefits, alleging that he was appointed as Office Assistant (Attender) in the petitioner School on 12.07.1999 and he was terminated from service on 14.08.2007 contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The first respondent passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation to the second respondent as full and final settlement. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.20743 of 2014

¶26

3.Before the Labour Court, the second respondent has examined

¶27

himself as W.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.W1 to Ex.W23. The petitioner has examined one witness M.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.M1 to Ex.M3.

¶28

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the industrial dispute itself is not maintainable since there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent and no dismissal order was passed as against the second respondent. Though he was appointed as Office Assistant in the petitioner School during the year 1999, since his conduct and character was not upto the satisfaction of the superiors from the beginning, the petitioner Management terminated him and two cheques, one for a sum of Rs.7,038/- and another for a sum of Rs.17,680/- were given to him to satisfy Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶29

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the writ petition is of the year 2014, till date, the petitioner has not taken effective steps to serve notice on the second

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.20743 of 2014

¶33

respondent. Considering the pendancy of the writ petition, this Court

¶34

is inclined to proceed with the case and decide the same based on the materials available on record.

¶35

6.The petitioner Management did not dispute the fact that the second respondent was appointed as Office Assistant (Attender) in the petitioner School on 12.07.1999. The petitioner claim that the conduct of the second respondent was not good and hence he was terminated from service. However, for terminating the second respondent, the petitioner ought to have conducted enquiry, however, the petitioner has not conducted any enquiry before terminating the second respondent from service, which is not sustainable one. The said fact was well considered by the first respondent and the first respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation to the second respondent as full and final settlement, which warrants no interference.

¶36

7.The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as directed by the first respondent, without interest, to the second respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.20743 of 2014

¶40

a copy of this order, if the amount has not yet been paid or deposited.

¶41

8.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the

¶42

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.