Disposed¶38

M.Thenneti Dhananjayalu v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC24 Feb 2025WP/5784/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ (Article 226) by M. Dhandapani, J., dated 24.02.2025 — modification/enhancement of Labour Court award compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-; termination of workman (service 01.11.2002 to 18.09.2006) with reinstatement claim dismissed; I.D.No. 232 of 2010; Principal/Additional Labour Court, Vellore; management of M.R.F. Ltd.; petitioner refused original compensation; writ filed 2014 against 2012 award; W.P. No. 5784 of 2014; M.P.No.1 of 2014; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by modifying the Labour Court award: management directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (M.P.No.1 of 2014) closed. ¶38

M.Thenneti Dhananjayalu Vs the Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the award dated 19.01.2012 in I.D.No. 232 of 2010 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, dismissing the petitioner's claim for reinstatement and continuity of service, ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Considering the service rendered by the petitioner and the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Labour Court at the relevant point of time, awarding the very same compensation at this point of time would not be just and reasonable; the Court therefore inclined to modify the Award amount fixed in I.D.No. 232 of 2010.

¶32

Key takeaways

The 2nd respondent/management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner to the credit of I.D.No. 232 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Vellore within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, on receipt of which the petitioner is directed to withdraw the amount.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.), decision dated 24.02.2025 — Writ petition (W.P. No. 5784 of 2014) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the common award dated 19.01.2012 in I.D.No. 232 of 2010 of the Labour Court, Vellore, which dismissed the petitioner-workman's claim for reinstatement and continuity of service and awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The petitioner had worked under the management of M.R.F. Ltd. from 01.11.2002 to 18.09.2006 and was terminated in 2006; he had refused and returned the compensation paid by the management. Holding that awarding the very same compensation at the present point of time would not be just and reasonable, the Court modified the award and directed the management to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner to the credit of I.D.No. 232 of 2010 within four weeks, on receipt of which the amount was to be withdrawn. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

WP No.5784 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P. No. 5784 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

M. Thenneti Dhananjayalu.

¶8

.... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court Vellore

¶11

The Management of M.R.F. Ltd., Ichiputhur Village & Post, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Cetiorari to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in connection with the common award I.D.No. 232 of 2010 pronounced on 19.01.2012 and quash the same and issue such further orders.

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

WP No.5784 of 2014

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel

¶17

For Respondents : R1-Court Mr.K.Sanjai Mohan for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the award dated 19.01.2012 in I.D.No. 232 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent herein.

¶20

The facts leading to filing of this writ petition is stated as follows :

¶21

The petitioner was working under the second respondent from 01.11.2002 to 18.09.2006. Though the petitioner was subjected to heavy workload than that of the permanent workmen. The petitioner's service was terminated. As against the order of termination, the petitioner raised industrial disputes individually. However, the first respondent, by the impugned award dated 19.01.2012, dismissed the claim made by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

WP No.5784 of 2014

¶25

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submit that admittedly the Labour Court vide Award dated 19.01.2012 directed the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner / workmen, however the petitioner refused and returned the compensation given by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that though the work performed by the petitioner was similar to the work as done by the permanent workmen, he was only treated as contract labour and even after completion of nearly three years, he was assigned and designated only as Apprentices is wholly unsustainable. Hence, without appreciating the said facts, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner seeking reinstatement and continuity of service and directed the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/~ to each petitioner cannot be sustained.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner has admitted that he worked under the 2nd respondent management as casual worker and he has not filed a single document to show that he worked continuously for nearly three years during the period he was engaged as casual employee. Moreover, it is the contention of the management that the overall performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory to the management and even in the evaluation conducted by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner did not qualify themselves to become permanent workmen was proved and the termination orders passed by the management

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

WP No.5784 of 2014

¶30

without holding domestic enquiry, is not in violation of the Act, which was rightly appreciated by the Labour Court and awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement cannot be interfered with.

¶31

Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner in this writ petition was terminated from service during the year 2006. More so, though the Award was passed in the year 2012, the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2014, which cannot be sustained. Considering the service rendered by the petitioner and the quantum of compensation arrived by the Labour court to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each to the petitioners at a relevant point of time, awarding the very same compensation at this point of time would not be just and reasonable. Hence, this Court is inclined to modify the Award amount fixed by the Additional Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No. 232 of 2010 dated 19.01.2012 as hereunder:

¶33

(i) The 2nd respondent / management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/~ to the petitioner to the credit of I.D.No. 232 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Vellore within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the petitioners are directed to withdraw the said amount.

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

WP No.5784 of 2014

¶37