Allowed¶44

The Management v. R.Vellingiri

Madras HC8 Apr 2025WP/8568/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 33(C)(2) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 computation petition; pre-existing right; double wages for rest day / rest hours duty; permanent conductor; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited; RTI application as basis of claim; G.O.(D).No.41 Transport (C1) Department dated 16.03.2007 crew norm 2.5 to 2.625 per bus; Principal Labour Court Coimbatore C.P.No.367 of 2013; order dated 01.10.2018 set aside; writ of certiorari under Article 226 allowed; Labour Court award arbitrary perverse unreasonable; Justice M. Dhandapani; Madras High Court; decision date 08.04.2025; W.P.No.8568 of 2019; W.M.P.No.9086 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order dated 01.10.2018 of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Management Vs R.Vellingiri — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order dated 01.10.2018 of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, a Labour Court may adjudicate and grant a monetary benefit where the employee's pre-existing right to that benefit has not been established through materials. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act provides a mechanism only for providing benefits with regard to pre-existing rights of an employee computable in terms of money; establishing such a pre-existing right through materials is incumbent on the employee, and no iota of adjudication is required to be made by the Labour Court.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

No pre-existing right computable in terms of monetary consideration was available to the respondent; therefore the petition under Section 33(c)(2) claiming double wages was itself erroneous, and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the computation petition or ordered payment of double wages when there was no specific direction for payment of backwages.

¶39

Key takeaways

Claiming double wages for a period of eight years after the fact is not sustainable; the respondent should have filed the computation petition at the relevant point of time, and accordingly no right accrued to him to claim double wages.ratio¶39
The Labour Court, ignoring the elemental question of its power of adjudication under Section 33(C)(2), partly allowed the computation petition and awarded double wages of Rs.83,632/- for 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012; that exercise is arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable and does not deserve to be sustained.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) allowed the writ petition (certiorari) filed by the Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., and set aside the order dated 01.10.2018 of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013, which had partly allowed a Section 33(C)(2) Industrial Disputes Act computation petition and directed payment of Rs.83,632/- as double wages to a permanent conductor for alleged work on rest days/rest hours over 333 days from 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012. Held: Section 33(C)(2) serves only to compute and provide benefits flowing from pre-existing, established rights of an employee computable in money, and calls for no adjudication by the Labour Court; a claim resting merely on information obtained through an RTI application, lodged years after the period for an eight-year stretch of alleged rest-day duty (against the backdrop of G.O.(D).No.41, Transport (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007 revising crew norms), conferred no pre-existing computable right; absent any specific direction for backwages, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the petition, its exercise being arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable.

¶1

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.9086 of 2019

¶9

The Management,

¶10

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 043. ... Petitioner

Vs.

R.Vellingiri

... 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 relating to the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013 and to quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan For Respondent : Mr.Ajoy Khose *****

¶16

Page No.1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013 dated 01.10.2018 and quash the same.

¶21

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

¶22

The respondent workman was employed as a permanent conductor under the petitioner Corporation from the year 1985. While so, he filed a computation petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ID Act') before the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013 claiming a sum of Rs.1,76,471/stating that he had been compelled to work on rest days and that he had been working on 31 days per month without any rest or leave for single wages only and the Labour Court passed the impugned order, dated 01.10.2018, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.83,632/- towards double wages to the respondent workman for the period from 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner Corporation has filed

¶23

Page No.2 of 8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶26

the present writ petition.

¶27

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent has filed the computation petition only in the year 2013 claiming total wages of Rs.1,76,471/- for the period from 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012, however no particulars were provided before the labour court. Further, the claim made in the computation petition is only based on the information received through RTI application, however the RTI application will not give any pre-existing rights to the respondent to file CP before the labour court. However, without appreciating the above, the labour court has granted double wages, which is clearly against the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the same deserves to be interfered with.

¶28

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent has worked as a permanent conductor in the petitioner Corporation and he has to work only for eights hours per day. However, the petitioner Corporation has extracted double duty per day, without providing any rest to the respondent and the same will be seen

¶29

Page No.3 of 8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶32

from the information obtained through RTI application. Based on the said RTI application, the respondent has filed the CP. The aforesaid aspects have been clearly considered by the labour court while passing the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶33

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶34

6 . The main aim of the Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act is only for creating a mechanism for providing the benefits with regard to the preexisting rights to an employee, which are computable in terms of money. Therefore, the main ingredient that forms part of Section 33(C)(2) is the pre-existing right of an employee to receive a benefit requires to be established. Therefore, it becomes incumbent on the part of the employee to establish through materials his pre-existing right to a certain benefit, which alone would clothe the Labour Court with power to grant the benefit and there is no iota of adjudication which is required to be made by the Labour Court.

¶35

7. In the present case, the respondent employed as a conductor

¶36

Page No.4 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶39

under the petitioner Corporation and in the year 2013, he filed CP before the labour court on the ground that he worked in the rest hours from 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012 for a period of 333 days. However, there was a Government Order in G.O.(D).No.41, Transport (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007, in which in order to over come the shortage of crew, the government has increased the norm of conductor and driver from 2.5 per bus to 2.625 per bus and 0.30 as reserve conductor driver per bus. Though the respondent claims that he worked on rest days from 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012, he should have filed the CP at the relevant point of time itself. However, claiming double wages for a period of eights years is not sustainable. Such being the case, no right accrues to the respondent to claim double wages. In the absence of any right accruing to the respondent, the petition u/s 33(c)(2) of the Act claiming double wages itself is erroneous as such a petition could be maintained only where a pre-existing right is available to the respondent to have a benefit computed in terms of monetary consideration. In the present case, no such pre-existing right was available to the respondent which could be computed in terms of monetary consideration and when there is no specific direction for payment of backwages, the labour court ought not to

¶40

Page No.5 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.8568 of 2019

¶43

have entertained the computation petition and ordered payment of double wages. However, ignoring the elemental question with regard to the power of the Labour Court with regard to adjudication of a claim under Section 33(C)(2), the Labour Court had partly allowed the computation petition, awarding double wages for the period from 01.05.2004 to 24.11.2012 to the tune of Rs.83,632/- in favour of the respondent workman. The exercise adopted by the labour court is arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable and the same does not deserve to be sustained.

¶44

8. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.367 of 2013 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

08.04.2025

¶46

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

¶47

The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court,

¶48

Page No.6 of 8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.8568 of 2019