Dismissed¶45

Management Rep. by v. a.Ravichandran

Madras HC18 Jul 2025WP/30791/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workman definition S.2(s) Industrial Dispute Act; in-charge / additional charge Secretary; clerk drawing clerk's salary; incidental duties do not confer supervisory character; co-operative society employee; Labour Court Cuddalore preliminary issue I.A.No.44 of 2018 in I.D.No.20 of 2018; certiorari under Article 226 dismissed; W.A.No.244 of 2000 Sri Vaikundam Co-operative Bank applied; Madras High Court, decided 18.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition WMP.No.30467 of 2023 closed. ¶45

Management Rep. by Vs a.Ravichandran — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition WMP.No.30467 of 2023 closed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, who held only the additional charge of in-charge Secretary while substantively working as a clerk on a clerk's salary, comes within the definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of the ID Act so as to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

On perusal of the entire records, the respondent was employed only as a clerk, drawing a clerk's salary, and held only the additional charge of Secretary.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

When a clerk is in-charge of a secretary position, the incidental charge does not convert the clerk into a supervisory employee; he would come under the purview of a workman entitled to raise an industrial dispute (applying the principle of W.A.No.244 of 2000).

¶42

Key takeaways

In the case on hand the petitioner admitted the respondent was only in-charge of the Secretary post while his actual post was clerk; the Labour Court's findings are in accordance with law, with no illegality or perversity, and do not warrant interference.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal, J.) dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari against the Labour Court, Cuddalore's order dated 27.07.2023 in I.D.No.20 of 2018, whereby the petitioner's application I.A.No.44 of 2018 — questioning whether an employee given only additional charge as in-charge Secretary of the society, while substantively a clerk drawing a clerk's salary, is a 'workman' under S.2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act — was dismissed. Applying this Court's earlier decision in W.A.No.244 of 2000 (Management, Sri Vaikundam Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, Tirunelveli), the Court holds that incidental work does not confer supervisory character: a clerk placed in-charge of the secretary post remains a workman competent to raise an industrial dispute. Finding no illegality or perversity in the Labour Court's order, the writ petition is dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Background recorded: alleged misappropriation of Rs.12,04,417.60 (01.04.2014–31.03.2015), suspension on 23.04.2015, charge memo on 10.08.2015, section 81 and section 87 Co-operative Societies Act proceedings, dismissal order dated 02.01.2016, a pending criminal case (Crime No.9 of 2015 / C.C.No.144 of 2016, Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram), and an earlier writ petition W.P.No.1785 of 2016 dismissed on 21.09.2017.

¶1

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

W.P.No.30791 of 2023 and WMP.No.30467 of 2023

¶7

Management represented by S.Rajarathinam .... Petitioner Vs

¶8

A.Ravichandran .... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in I.D.No.20 of 2018 and I.A.No.44 of 2018 on the file of the Labour Court

¶10

Cuddalore and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy

¶12

For Respondent :Mr.R.Karunagaran ORDER

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.20 of 2018 dated 27.07.2023, wherein the respondent herein raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.20 of 2018. While the case was pending, the petitioner herein filed an

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶17

I.A.No.44 of 2018 to decide whether the in-charge Secretary comes under the purview of 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act') as a workman and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent, an employee in the petitioner's society, was appointed as secretary in-charge. His duties included supervising subordinates and checking and maintaining the society's accounts. While so, for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 a sum of Rs.12,04,417.60 was misappropriated. The respondent was suspended on 23.04.2015 and a charge memo was subsequently issued on 10.08.2015. The society initiated proceedings under section 81 of Co-operative Societies Act. In the enquiry report, the misappropriation of the funds were came to light and thereafter section 87 proceedings were initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act to recover the said amount. The enquiry officer submitted a report, and based on the domestic enquriy report, the charges against the respondent were proved. Consequently, petitioner's society issued a dismissal order to the respondent on 02.01.2016. Apart

¶19

2/8

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶22

from that, a criminal case, in Crime No.9 of 2015, was registered under section 120(B), 408, 468 and 477(a) of IPC and now it is pending in C.C.No.144 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram. Already, the 2 nd respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1785 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on 21.09.2017. Subsequently, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.20 of 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.44 of 2018 to decide whether the in-charge Secretary comes under the purview of the Labour Court or not. The Labour Court dismissed the petition holding that the respondent drew a clerk's salary and was only an in-charge, and therefore, could not be treated as a Secretary. The aforesaid findings of the Labour Court are erroneous and thus, the order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed.

¶23

3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent joined the petitioner's society as a salesman on 07.10.1987. In the year 1992, he was promoted to clerk Grade-III. Subsequently, on 5.7.2012, he was given the additional charge of in-charge of secretary, for which, he did not receive extra remuneration, continuing to draw a

¶24

3/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶27

clerk's salary. The petitioner suspended the respondent on 23.04.2015, alleging charges against him. A charge memo was issued on 10.08.2015. He also gave his explanation, but it was not accepted. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted and thereafter he was removed from service based on the enquiry findings. The respondent challenged the same before Labour Court in I.D.No.20 of 2018. while this main industrial dispute is pending, the petitioner herein filed an application to decide whether the respondent, holding the additional charge of Secretary, comes under the purview of definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of the ID Act. The Labour Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent was only in-charge of the secretary and his post was clerk and he was drawing clerk's salary. Therefore, the Labour Court passed a reasoned order, and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

4. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.

¶29

5. This petition is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in I.A.No.44 of 2018 in I.D.No.20 of 2018. In that case, the respondent herein raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Cuddalore. The petitioner, as the respondent in the Industrial Dispute,

¶30

4/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶33

filed an application to decide whether the respondent by holding the position of in-charge Secretary of the society, comes under the definition of workman as per section 2(s) of the ID Act. The Labour Court came to a conclusion that the respondent was originally working as a clerk and drew a clerk's salary. Since he was only given an additional charge as incharge Secretary, he cannot be considered as Secretary. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined one witness and marked 8 documents.

¶34

6. This Court has also perused the entire records. On perusal, it is

¶35

seen that the respondent was employed only as a clerk, drawing a clerk's salary and also held the additional charge of Secretary.

¶36

7. At this juncture it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.244 of 2000 dated 02.03.2010, in the case of “Management,

¶37

Sri Vaikundam Co-operative Bank Ltd., Srivaikundam, Chidambaramanar District by the Special Officer, A.Mathar Sulaiman Vs. Labour Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and another, wherein this Court held that incidental work cannot convert the employee as a supervisory in character and found that the 2 nd respondent would come

¶38

5/8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶41

under the purview of workman to raise an Industrial Dispute. Therefore,

¶42

when a clerk is in-charge of a secretary position, it does not convert the

¶43

clerk into a supervisory in character and he would come under the purview of a workman to raise an industrial dispute. In the case on hand, the petitioner also admitted that he was only in-charge of the Secretary post, but his actual post was clerk. Therefore, the Labour Court findings are in accordance with law and there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Labour Court, and it does not warrant any interference.

¶44

8. In view of the afore said discussions, this Court is of the opinion

¶45

that this writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

18.07.2025

¶47

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No mpa

¶48

6/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

¶51

¶52

The Management, T.N.S.T.C (Salem) Ltd, Dharmapuri Division, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri-5

¶53

7/8

¶54

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

W.P.No.30791 of 2023

P.DHANABAL,J.

mpa

W.P. No.30791 of 2023 and WMP.No.30467 of 2023

¶59

18.07.2025

¶60

8/8

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.20 of 2018 dated 27.07.2023, whereby the petitioner's application in I.A.No.44 of 2018 (whether the in-charge Secretary is a 'workman' under S.2(s) of the ID Act) was dismissed.¶13
Labour Court, Cuddalore · 27.07.2023
Prior proceeding
Respondent joined the petitioner's society as salesman on 07.10.1987 and was promoted to clerk Grade-III in 1992 (per respondent's counsel).¶23
Prior proceeding
On 5.7.2012 the respondent was given additional charge as in-charge secretary without extra remuneration, continuing to draw a clerk's salary (per respondent's counsel).¶23
Prior proceeding
Alleged misappropriation of Rs.12,04,417.60 for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 (per petitioner's counsel).¶18
Prior proceeding
Respondent suspended on 23.04.2015; charge memo issued on 10.08.2015.¶18
Prior proceeding
Society initiated proceedings under section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act.¶18
Prior proceeding
Enquiry report disclosed the misappropriation; section 87 recovery proceedings initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act.¶18
Prior proceeding
Charges proved based on the domestic enquiry report; dismissal order issued on 02.01.2016.¶18
Prior proceeding
Criminal case in Crime No.9 of 2015 registered under sections 120(B), 408, 468 and 477(a) IPC, pending in C.C.No.144 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram.¶22
Prior proceeding
Earlier writ petition W.P.No.1785 of 2016 before this Court (by the 2nd respondent therein) was dismissed on 21.09.2017.¶22
Prior proceeding
Respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.20 of 2018.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed I.A.No.44 of 2018 to decide whether the in-charge Secretary comes under S.2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act as a workman; the application was dismissed.¶17
Prior proceeding
Labour Court dismissed I.A.No.44 of 2018 holding that the respondent drew a clerk's salary and was only an in-charge, and therefore could not be treated as a Secretary.¶22

Management Rep. by v. a.Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Management Rep. by v. a.Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Rajamani Vs the Joint Commissioner of Labour

The Management Vs S.Subramanian

The Management Vs S.Subramanian

Williams Photography Vs Assistant Director / Deputy Director

The Management Vs The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour

The Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs J.S.Charles Selvadurai