Dismissed¶47

The Management v. Mrs.Sarammal

Madras HC5 Aug 2025WP/22460/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ disposal; Article 226 certiorari; III Additional Labour Court Chennai; O.P.No.146 of 2019 award dated 30.03.2021 partly challenged; lump sum compensation Rs.50,400/- in lieu of reinstatement; three months' salary per year of service formula; 14 years of service; termination without notice; alleged Rs.2,400/- full and final settlement unproved; deposit released to workman on application; Precision Testing Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sarammal; writ petition dismissed; WMP.No.23699 of 2021 closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The amount already deposited to the credit of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in OP.No.146/2019 shall be paid to the respondent on her making necessary applications; no costs; the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ¶47

The Management Vs Mrs.Sarammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with, and quash, the limb of the III Additional Labour Court award granting lump sum compensation of Rs.50,400/- (computed at three months' salary per year of service for 14 years) in lieu of reinstatement.

¶34

Court's answer

It was admitted that the respondent had worked with the petitioner management for over 14 years.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's services were terminated without notice; and although the petitioner contended that Rs.2,400/- had been paid as full and final settlement, no proof for the same was filed by the petitioner.

¶41

Key takeaways

On that basis the writ court saw no reason to interfere with the III Additional Labour Court's computation of the lump sum compensation at a sum of Rs.50,400/- by adopting the formula of three months' salary per year for a period of 14 years.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.), 05.08.2025 — W.P.No.22460 of 2021 (with WMP.No.23699 of 2021) DISMISSED. Certiorari under Article 226 was sought only against the lump-sum-compensation limb (Rs.50,400/-) of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai award dated 30.03.2021 in O.P.No.146 of 2019, whereby Mrs. Sarammal, engaged to clean the petitioner company's Chennai office, who had served over 14 years and whose services were terminated without notice, was denied reinstatement (the Labour Court having found no illegal termination or retrenchment) but compensated at three months' salary per year of service. The petitioner's contention that Rs.2,400/- had been paid as full and final settlement foundered for want of any filed proof. The writ court saw no reason to interfere; the deposited award amount is to be paid to the respondent on her application; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.22460 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.22460 of 2021 and

¶7

WMP.No.23699 of 2021

¶8

The Management Precision Testing Machines Pvt. Ltd. Doshi Towers No.156, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk Chennai-600010

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs.Sarammal

...Respondent

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 30.03.2021 passed in O.P.No.146 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai quash the same in so far as the order of lump sum compensation of Rs.50,400/- to the respondent is concerned.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.22460 of 2021

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.C.D.Sugumar For Respondent : M/s.M.Ramesh Babu

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The above Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner

¶20

management challenging the award passed by the III Additional

¶21

Labour Court, in OP.No.146/2019 dated 30.03.2021.

¶22

2.The facts are briefly set out hereinbelow.

¶23

The petitioner is based at New Delhi and the main activity of

¶24

the company is that it deals with equipment including two post lift, scissor lift wheel alignment etc. The petitioner conducts its business online and occasionally deals directly with the client on a face to face basis. The office of the petitioner company at Chennai was established

¶25

and started functioning from the year 2003 in a rented portion at Chamiers Road, Teynampet, Chennai. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the petitioner company had purchased an office space measuring 1110 Sq.ft. in a building situate as the above-said address and shifted to the present address.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.22460 of 2021

¶29

The petitioner operates through a single staff, namely, the Relationship Manager. In order to clean up the office, the services of the respondent was engaged. Apart from the petitioner’s office she was also engaged by the other offices in the same building.

¶30

While, so, the respondent on her own volition had stopped coming for work and she had received a sum of Rs.2,400/- as full and final settlement from the petitioner. After receiving the same, she had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, stating that her services has been terminated and requested to settle the dispute between the parties. The conciliation proceedings ended in a failure and a failure report dated 21.01.2019 was issued. Thereafter, the respondent had filed OP.No.146/2014 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai seeking reinstatement with all attendant benefits. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.03.2001, while dismissing the dispute had ordered a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,400/- to the workman. The learned Judge had observed that there is no illegal termination or retrenchment and therefore the

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.22460 of 2021

¶34

respondent was not entitled to reinstatement with backwages and other benefits. However, considering the fact that she had worked for a period of 14 years, the learned Judge while calculating the lump sum compensation adopted the formula of three months' salary per year of service. Ultimately, the learned Judge had awarded a sum of Rs.50,400/- to the respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶36

sum directed has already been deposited by the petitioner as a stay was granted on condition that the sum be deposited to the credit of the

¶37

III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in OP.No.146/2019.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶39

Admittedly, the respondent had worked with the petitioner

¶40

management for over 14 years and her services has been terminated

¶41

without notice. Though the petitioner had contended that they had paid a sum of Rs.2,400/- as full and final settlement no proof for the

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.22460 of 2021

¶45

same has been filed by them. Therefore, taking into account the above the learned III Additional Labour Court Judge has computed the lump

¶46

sum compensation at a sum of Rs.50,400/- by adopting the formula of three months' salary per year for a period of 14 years and I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶47

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The amount already deposited to the credit of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in OP.No.146/2019 shall be paid to the respondent on her making necessary applications. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

05.08.2025

¶49

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

¶50

¶51