Dismissed¶53

The Management v. P.Neethipathy

Madras HC1 Apr 2025WP/22548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

back wages; 50% back wages; full back wages; 100% back wages claim; unauthorized absence; medical leave; fitness certificate; medical passport; dismissal from service; enquiry officer; charge memo; conciliation officer complaint; non-allotment of duty; reinstatement; continuity of service; attendant benefits; Industrial Disputes Act 1947 S.2A(2); I.D.No.5 of 2017; III Additional Labour Court Chennai; Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited; driver workman; writ of certiorari; Article 226; labour court award upheld; no interference.

What did the court decide?

No relief to either petitioner; both writ petitions dismissed and the transport corporation directed to honour the impugned award; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶53

The Management Vs P.Neethipathy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to either petitioner; both writ petitions dismissed and the transport corporation directed to honour the impugned award; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the workman's absence from 26.05.2016 onwards constituted unauthorized absence justifying dismissal, and his entitlement to back wages for the period till 08.11.2016. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

The workman's absence from 26.05.2016 till 10.07.2016, covered by a leave application supported by 11 medical documents, cannot be stated to be unauthorized absence.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

From 26.05.2016 till 08.11.2016 the workman was entitled to full back wages with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

¶48

Key takeaways

From 08.11.2016, when the workman approached the labour authorities complaining of non-allotment of duty, till the date of rejoining duty, he is entitled to 50% of the back wages with continuity of service sans attendant benefits.ratio¶52
The labour court's award is cogent and convincing; this Court finds no error in it warranting interference, and the workman's demand for 100% back wages for the post-08.11.2016 period is rejected.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.), common order dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019: cross-writ petitions by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and its driver-workman against the award dated 12.02.2019 of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.5 of 2017 (dispute raised u/s 2A(2), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) were dismissed. The workman, dismissed for alleged continuous absence from 26.05.2016 following an accident of 25.05.2016 and medical leave supported by 11 medical documents, had reported for duty on 11.07.2016 with a fitness certificate and again on 13.07.2016 with the corporation-required 'medical passport', yet was not allotted duty despite a head-office allotment letter of 15.07.2016. Holding the absence till 10.07.2016 not unauthorized, the Court confirmed the award: full back wages with continuity of service and attendant benefits from 26.05.2016 to 08.11.2016, and 50% back wages with continuity of service sans attendant benefits from 08.11.2016 (when he complained to the labour authorities of non-allotment of duty) till rejoining duty. The workman's claim for 100% back wages was rejected, the corporation's objection to any back wages failed, and the corporation was directed to honour the impugned award.

¶1

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.21975 of 2019

¶7

W.P.No.22548 of 2019

¶8

The Management, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

P.Neethipathy ... Respondent

¶11

W.P.No.13568 of 2019

¶12

P.Neethipathi ... Petitioner Vs. The Management, Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondent

¶13

Prayer in W.P.No.22548 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.5 of 2017 and to quash the same.

¶14

Prayer in W.P.No.11671 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Impugned Award dated 12.02.2019 passed in I.D.No.5

¶15

Page No.1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶18

of 2017 by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the award as far as the granting 50% of back wages for the period after 08.11.2016 till the date of rejoining the duty and modify the award to 100% back wages to the petitioner for the period after 08.11.2016 to till the date of rejoining the duty.

¶19

W.P.No.22548 of 2019

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gowthamraj For Respondent : Mr.R.Anish Kumar

¶21

W.P.No.11671 of 2019

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Gowthamraj

¶23

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

Both the writ petitions impugn the award dated 12.02.2019 passed

¶26

by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.5 of 2017.

¶27

2. W.P.No.11674 of 2019 is challenged by the workman, an

¶28

employee of the transport corporation aggrieved by the grant of 50% of backwages.

¶29

3. W.P.No.22548 of 2019 is filed by the transport corporation granting backwages at all.

¶30

Page No.2 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶33

4. Since the issue involved is one and the same, the parties are also

¶34

the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶35

5. For the ease of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'transport corporation' and 'workman'.

¶36

6. The workman was employed as a driver under the transport

¶37

corporation. According to him, he met with an accident on 25.05.2016 and he got admitted in hospital. Therefore, he applied for medical leave from 26.05.2016 to 09.06.2016. Thereafter, he extended the leave period from 10.06.2016 to 26.06.2016. He further extended the medical leave from 27.06.2016 to 06.07.2016. After four days, on 11.07.2016, he reported for duty, along with a fitness certificate. The transport corporation directed him to get medical passport from the authorized medical practitioner of the corporation. Accordingly, the workman obtained a medical passport on 12.07.2016 and reported before the Branch Manager, Poonamallee Depot on 13.07.2016. According to the workman, he was not allotted duty and only on 15.07.2016, he received a

¶38

Page No.3 of 8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶41

letter of allotment of duty from the head office. He produced the said letter before the Branch Manager, Poonamallee Depot on the same day. However, according to the workman, the corporation did not allot him any duty. Hence, on 18.07.2016, he filed a complaint before the conciliation officer. On 08.08.2016, the workman was issued with a charge memo stating that he was on continuous absence from 26.05.2016. The workman submitted his explanation; being not satisfied with the explanation, the enquiry officer was appointed. After getting report from the enquiry officer, the workman was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the labour court u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). Even before the labour court, it was brought to the knowledge of the labour court that the corporation permitted him to join duty and accordingly, the workman is now in service with the transport corporation. The labour court on analyzing all the materials available before it, awarded full backwages from 26.05.2016 to 08.11.2016 and 50% backwages after 08.11.2016 till the date of rejoining the duty with continuity of service alone. Aggrieved by the said award, both the parties are before this court.

¶42

Page No.4 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶45

7. This Court is not inclined to go into the arguments advanced on the both side on the simple reason that the award passed by the labour

¶46

court is cogent and convincing.

¶47

8. The workman has submitted is leave application along with 11

¶48

medical documents. Therefore, his absence from 26.05.2016 till 10.07.2016 cannot be stated to be unauthorized absence. Moreover, the workman has presented himself for duty before the Branch Manager, Poonamallee Depot on 11.07.2016 along with a fitness certificate. Instead of permitting the workman to join duty, the Branch Manager directed him to get medical passport from the authorized medical practitioner of the transport corporation. In compliance with the said direction, the workman even got medical passport from the medical officer concerned and produced the same before the Branch Manager on 13.07.2016. Even thereafter, the workman was denied employment and only on 15.07.2016, he got a letter from the head office regarding his allotment of duty. On production of the same before the Branch Manager, Poonamallee, the Branch Manager still refused to allot any work. Therefore, from 26.05.2016 till 08.11.2016, the workman was entitled for full backwages with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

¶49

Page No.5 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶52

From 08.11.2016, the date of which approached the labour authorities complaining non allotment of duty till date of rejoining duty, the workman is entitled to 50% of the backwages with continuity of service sans attendant benefits. The labour court awarded only 50% of the backwages considering the nature of the dispute between the parties. This Court does not find any error in the order passed by the labour court warranting interference.

¶53

9. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The transport corporation is directed to honour the impugned award passed by the labour court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

01.04.2025

¶55

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

¶56

Page No.6 of 8

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶59

¶60

1.The III Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶61

2.The Management, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai,

¶62

Chennai – 600 002.

¶63

Page No.7 of 8

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶66

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶67

¶68

W.P.Nos.22548 & 11671 of 2019

¶69

01.04.2025

¶70

Page No.8 of 8

¶71

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 12.02.2019 in I.D.No.5 of 2017: full back wages from 26.05.2016 to 08.11.2016 and 50% back wages after 08.11.2016 till the date of rejoining duty, with continuity of service; challenged by the transport corporation (against any back wages) and by the workman (seeking 100% back wages for the post-08.11.2016 period).¶13
III Additional Labour Court, Chennai · 12.02.2019
Prior proceeding
Workman employed as driver under the transport corporation; met with an accident on 25.05.2016, was hospitalised, and applied for medical leave from 26.05.2016 to 09.06.2016, extended to 26.06.2016 and further to 06.07.2016.¶37
Prior proceeding
Workman reported for duty on 11.07.2016 with a fitness certificate; instead of being permitted to join, he was directed to obtain a medical passport from the corporation's authorised medical practitioner.¶37
Prior proceeding
Workman obtained the medical passport on 12.07.2016 and reported before the Branch Manager, Poonamallee Depot on 13.07.2016.¶37
Prior proceeding
Despite receipt of a duty-allotment letter from the head office on 15.07.2016, the corporation did not allot duty; workman filed a complaint before the conciliation officer on 18.07.2016.¶41
Prior proceeding
Charge memo issued on 08.08.2016 alleging continuous absence from 26.05.2016; explanation found unsatisfactory and enquiry officer appointed.¶41
Prior proceeding
On the enquiry officer's report, the workman was dismissed from service.¶41
Prior proceeding
Workman raised an industrial dispute before the labour court under S.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.¶41
Prior proceeding
Before the labour court it was brought on record that the corporation had permitted the workman to join duty and he was now in service.¶41
Prior proceeding
Labour court awarded full back wages from 26.05.2016 to 08.11.2016 and 50% back wages after 08.11.2016 till the date of rejoining duty, with continuity of service.¶41

The Management v. P.Neethipathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. P.Neethipathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management Vs T.Pachaiappan

The General Manager Vs a.Venkatesa Perumal

Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

The Management of Vs K.P.Sakthivel

The Management, Vs R.Chandra

R. Easan(deceased) Vs the District Judge Cum