Disposed¶35

G.Raguraman, v. The Managing Director

Madras HC13 Nov 2025WP(MD)/31597/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus; refund of Rs.1,11,111/- deducted from arrear payment dated 25.03.2022; Section 17B Industrial Disputes Act wages; Section 18(1) settlement; retrenchment violation of Section 25F; Labour Court Madurai award I.D.No.73 of 1991 dated 21.04.1999; reinstatement with continuity without back wages; reinstated 29.04.2015; Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank; claim remitted to respondent for decision after hearing within twelve weeks; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without deciding merits; petitioner directed to furnish particulars of his claim to the respondent, and the respondent Management directed to afford a hearing and pass an order on the claim within twelve weeks; no costs. ¶35

G.Raguraman, Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent Bank is liable to refund Rs.1,11,111/- allegedly deducted illegally from the arrear payment made on 25.03.2022 for the period 02.05.2015 to 31.07.2017, via a writ of mandamus. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Without expressing anything on the merits of the petitioner's claim, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to furnish the particulars of his claim to the respondent.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of the particulars, the respondent Management shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order on his claim within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs awarded.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (B.Pugalendhi J., 13.11.2025), W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025: An erstwhile employee of Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank, retrenched on 09.07.1990 and reinstated pursuant to a Labour Court, Madurai award in I.D.No.73 of 1991 dated 21.04.1999 (reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages, confirmed up to the Supreme Court through WP(MD) No.2309 of 2000, WA(MD) No.597 of 2009 and SLP(C) No.28070 of 2012), who rejoined only on 29.04.2015, sought a mandamus directing the Bank to refund Rs.1,11,111/- allegedly deducted from the arrear payment settled on 25.03.2022 for 02.05.2015 to 31.07.2017, contending that Section 17B wages agreed by the Management remained unpaid notwithstanding the Section 18(1) settlement. The Bank contended that all salary due had been settled and the claim exceeded eligible salary. Without expressing anything on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to furnish particulars of his claim and the respondent to grant a hearing and pass an order within twelve weeks. No costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶7

G.Raguraman ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Managing Director, Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank, 187, North Veli Street, Madurai - 625 001. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,11,111/- deducted illegally in the arrear payment, paid on 25.03.2022 for the period from 02.05.2015 to 31.07.2017 and thus render justice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy For Respondent : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, erstwhile employee of the respondent

¶17

Central Cooperative Bank has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Bank to refund a sum of Rs.1,11,111/-, which according to the petitioner, has been deducted illegally, while arrears have been settled by the respondent to him, on 25.03.2022, for the period from 02.05.2015 to 31.07.2017.

¶18

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

¶19

appointed in the respondent Co-operative Bank on 23.03.1983. The respondent Management has retrenched this petitioner, in violation of 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, on 09.07.1990 and therefore, he has raised the Industrial Dispute, before the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.73 of 1991 and the same was allowed by an award, dated 21.04.1999, with a direction to the respondent Bank to reinstate him, with continuity of service. As against this award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent Management has filed a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD) No.2309 of 2000 and the

¶20

2/7

¶21

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

¶22

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶23

same was dismissed, by confirming the award passed by the Labour Court. Writ appeal filed by the Management in WA(MD) No.597 of 2009 and also the Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.28070 of 2012 filed by the Management were dismissed by this Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court, by confirming the award passed by the Labour Court in ID.No.73 of 1991. The Labour Court, by its award dated, 21.04.1999 has directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner and other employees, who have been similarly ousted, into service, with continuity of service, however, without any back wages, As such, they have been reinstated into service only on 29.04.2015. Pending litigation filed by the Management, the petitioner and others claim that they are entitled for wages under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was also ordered by this Court. Subsequently, a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been arrived and as per the settlement, the petitioner and others claim that they have not been paid with a sum of Rs.1,11,111/- for the period from 02.05.2015 to 31.07.2017.

¶24

3/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶27

3.Mr.Shanmuga Raja Sethupathi, learned counsel takes

¶28

notice for the respondent Management and submits that as per the settlement, salaries due to the petitioner have already been settled, however, the petitioner claims the amount over and above his eligible salary and therefore, he is not entitled for the same.

¶29

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

5.The petitioner has obtained an award in I.D.No.79 of 1991, dated 21.04.1999, which has also been confirmed up to the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner is entitled for the wages, under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Management claims that there was a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arrived at, between the workers and the Management and as per the settlement, the entire amount due to the petitioner has been settled to him. According to the learned

¶31

4/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶34

counsel for the petitioner, the wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as agreed by the Management has not been paid to the petitioner, for the period from 02.05.2015 to 31.07.2017 and therefore, he has filed this writ petition, seeking a Mandamus.

¶35

Considering that the limited relief sought for in this writ petition is only for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to refund the amount, this Court without expressing anything on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, disposes of this writ petition, with a direction to this petitioner to furnish the particulars of his claim to the respondent and on receipt of the same, the respondent Management shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter shall pass an order, on his claim, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

13.11.2025

Index:Yes

5/7

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.31597 of 2025

¶41

Internet:Yes vrn