Disposed¶81

M.T.Sukumar @ Mayilai v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC27 Feb 2025WP/4650/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court common order 27-02-2025; WP Nos. 4650 of 2014 & 6708 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015; workman M.T.Sukumar @ Mayilai Sugumar vs Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.; Labour Court award I.D.746 dated 06.02.2013; dismissal from service 01.12.1993; disciplinary proceedings; back wages vs lumpsum compensation Rs.2,00,000/- enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- in full quit; inflation adjustment; delay in challenging award; enrolment as Advocate 24.11.2000; superannuation 31.12.2008 / revised 31.12.2010; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Management directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in full quit to the workman within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petitions disposed of with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

M.T.Sukumar @ Mayilai Vs the Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the workman was entitled to payment of full back wages treating the entire period from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.2010 as duty period with all attendant benefits, in lieu of the lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Considering the fact that the industrial dispute is of the year 2013 and also the rate of inflation, this Court found itself inclined to award a higher sum than the Labour Court's lumpsum back-wage compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶73

Ratio / Principle

Compensation in full quit fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-, directed to be paid by the management to the workman within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶78

Key takeaways

With the above observation, both writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (M.P.No.1 of 2015) was closed.ratio¶81

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani J.), common order dated 27-02-2025 disposing of cross writ petitions (WP Nos. 4650 of 2014 by workman M.T.Sukumar @ Mayilai Sugumar and 6708 of 2015 by the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.) arising from a Labour Court award in I.D.746 dated 06.02.2013. The workman, dismissed on 01.12.1993 after disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct, had secured an award holding the dismissal unsustainable with lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards back wages; the workman sought full back wages treating the entire period from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.2010 (revised superannuation date) as duty period, having enrolled as an Advocate on 24.11.2000, while the management challenged the award citing the lapse of years and the absence of any pleading proving the workman was not gainfully employed. Considering the fact that the industrial dispute is of the year 2013 and the rate of inflation, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,00,000/- payable in full quit within four weeks, in lieu of full back wages. Both writ petitions disposed of, no costs; connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 closed. No precedents were cited.

¶1

1/8

¶2

WP No. 4650 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 27-02-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶7

WP Nos. 4650 of 2014 & 6708 of 2015

¶8

and

¶9

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶10

M.T.Sukumar @ Mayilai Sugumar (senior Citizen) Advocate, No.2/7, Irusappan Street, Chennai-3

¶11

Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

The Presiding Officer Principal Labour Court, High Court Chennai-104

¶14

2.Secretary The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Park Town Chennai-3

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

WP No. 6708 of 2015

¶17

1. The Chief Executive/

¶18

Secretary, Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Park Town, Chennai 600 003

¶19

Petitioner(s)

¶20

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

2/8

WP No. 4650 of 2014

The Presiding Officer Principal Labour Court, Chennai

¶25

2.M.T.Sukumar

¶26

Respondent(s)

¶27

WP No. 4650 of 2014

¶28

PRAYER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned award of the 1st respondent in I.D.746 of 2000 dated 06.02.2013 quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner full back wages treating the entire period from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.2010 as duty period with all attendant benefits.

¶29

WP No. 6708 of 2015

¶30

PRAYER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D. No.746 of 2000 and quash its award dated 06.2.2013.

¶31

WP No. 4650 of 2014

¶32

For Petitioner(s): M/s.V.Selvaraj For Respondent(s): M/s.A.Jenasenan for R2 R1 - Labour Court.

¶33

WP No. 6708 of 2015

¶34

For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Ravindran, Senior counsel for M/s.S.Bazeer Ahamed For Respondent(s): R1 - Labour Court. M/s.V.Selvaraj for R2

¶35

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

3/8

WP No. 4650 of 2014

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in the present writ petitions are one and the same

¶40

they are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶41

For ease of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.No.4650 of 2014 is

¶42

referred to as workman and the petitioner in W.P.No.6708 of 2015 is referred to

¶43

as Management.

¶44

According to the workman, he is an Advocate who started his career as

¶45

an employee under the second respondent Society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., which was incorporated in the year 1907. The

¶46

workman was the General Secretary of the Staff Union and after exposing corruption and maladministration within the society, he was dismissed from service on 01.12.1993. Challenging the same I.D.No.746 of 2006 was filed. The Labour Court, by award dated 06.02.2013, held the dismissal unsustainable and

¶47

ordered compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the workman. Seeking full backwages,

¶48

the workman had filed W.P.No.4650 of 2014 and challenging the compensation

¶49

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

¶50

4/8

¶51

WP No. 4650 of 2014

¶52

awarded by the Labour Court, the management / Society has filed W.P.No.6708

¶53

of 2015.

¶54

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that admittedly the

¶55

date of superannuation of the workman is on 31.12.2008, as per the revised age

¶56

of superannuation, the workman could have attained superannuation only on 31.12.2010. However, the workman had enrolled as an Advocate on 24.11.2000

¶57

and pursuant to the dismissal, the workman was not gainfully employed during

¶58

his non-employment period. However, without considering the same, the Labour Court has fixed only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards backwages which is not sustainable.

¶59

The learned counsel for the management submits that though the award

¶60

has been passed by the Labour Court during the year 2000, however, the same

¶61

has been challenged by the workman after a lapse of seven years which is per se unsustainable. It was also admitted by the workman that he was enrolled as an

¶62

Advocate during the year 2000, however, it is for the workman to prove that he

¶63

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

¶64

5/8

¶65

WP No. 4650 of 2014

¶66

was not gainfully employed anywhere during his non-employment period. In

¶67

the absence of any such pleading before the Labour Court, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards backwages which is wholly

¶68

unsustainable. Accordingly, he prayed to allow W.P.No.6708 of 2015.

¶69

Heard the respective learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶70

materials placed on record.

¶71

The employee-employer relationship is not in dispute. F or the alleged

¶72

misconduct committed by the workman, the management has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman and he was dismissed from

¶73

service in the year 1993. Assailing which, the workman has preferred the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court only in the year 2000 which is after a lapse of seven years from the date of dismissal. However, the Labour Court has awarded lumpsum backwages of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Considering the fact that the industrial dispute is of the year 2013 and also considering the rate of inflation, this Court is inclined to award a sum of

¶74

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

¶75

6/8

¶76

WP No. 4650 of 2014

¶77

Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman as compensation in full quit. The management is

¶78

directed t o pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in full quit to the

¶79

workman within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of