Allowed¶39

The Divisional Forest Officer v. a. Govintharaj

Madras HC18 Feb 2025WP(MD)/8977/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari against Labour Court award; retrenchment/termination dispute; 50% backwages quashed; regularization with retrospective effect from 24.01.1995; order dated 02.03.2018 in W.P.No.4028 of 2018 relied on; suppression of pending award; workman superannuated and drawing pension; Social Forestry Division, Ramanathapuram/Virudhunagar; no appearance by first respondent; I.D.No.14 of 2011; Labour Court Madurai; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.; decision dated 18.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 16.09.2015 passed in I.D.No.14 of 2011 by the Labour Court, Madurai, quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD) No.7152 of 2016) closed. ¶39

The Divisional Forest Officer Vs a. Govintharaj — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (workman) remains entitled to the 50% backwages awarded by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.14 of 2011, when his service has since been regularized with retrospective/notional effect pursuant to this Court's order in W.P.No.4028 of 2018 and he has superannuated with pension.

¶26

Court's answer

Since the first respondent's service was regularized (notionally with effect from 24.01.1995) pursuant to this Court's order in W.P.No.4028 of 2018, and he has retired on superannuation drawing pension with all service benefits, he cannot be held entitled to the backwages awarded under the impugned Labour Court order.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent, while pursuing W.P.No.4028 of 2018 for regularization, suppressed the passing of the impugned award in his favour by the Labour Court declining reinstatement, and thereby obtained the benefit of regularization of his service.

¶38

Key takeaways

A litigant who has availed the benefit of this Court's order (regularization with pension) cannot be permitted to make any further claim under the impugned award of the Labour Court.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226) by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Ramanathapuram and the Conservator of Forests, Virudhunagar, allowed; the award dated 16.09.2015 of the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.14 of 2011, directing payment of 50% backwages to the workman (first respondent) while rejecting reinstatement and other claims, is quashed. Grounds: pursuant to the High Court's own order dated 02.03.2018 in W.P.No.4028 of 2018, the workman's service had been regularized notionally with effect from 24.01.1995 with pay fixed; he superannuated, draws pension, and stands extended all service benefits, leaving him with no subsisting entitlement to backwages; moreover, while obtaining regularization he suppressed the pendency/passing of the impugned award declining reinstatement, and a party who has availed the benefit of the Court's order cannot press any claim under the earlier impugned award. Decision rendered ex parte in effect, as the first respondent did not appear despite adjournments.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.7152 of 2016

¶8

1.The Divisional Forest Officer Social Forestry Division Ramanathapuram

¶9

2.The Conservator of Forests Social Forestry Division Near Collectorate Premises Sathur Road Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District ... Petitioners

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.A.Govintharaj 2.The Labour Court Madurai ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.14 of 2011 and quash the same.

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader For Respondents : No appearance for R1 R2 – Court

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2015, passed in I.D.No.14 of 2011, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

¶19

2. The said industrial dispute was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the order of retrenchment / termination alleged to have been passed by the petitioners herein and claiming reinstatement with continuity of service, backwages and attendant benefits.

¶20

3. The said industrial dispute was disposed of by the second respondent by the impugned order directing the petitioners to pay 50% of backwages to the first respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, while rejecting the other claims, including reinstatement into service etc.

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016

¶24

4. Aggrieved by the direction issued by the second respondent

¶25

directing the petitioners to pay 50% of backwages to the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

5. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 14.02.2025, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners that the first respondent has been prosecuting various proceedings simultaneously and along with certain others, he also filed W.P.No.4028 of 2018 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 02.03.2018, directed for regularization of the service of the first respondent on par with his juniors and accordingly, the service of the first respondent was regularized with retrospective effect from 1995 and accordingly, the first respondent has also retired from service and he is also being paid pension. Thus, it is contended that the entire service of the first respondent was regularized and he was extended all the service benefits and therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for the relief as was granted by the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

¶27

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016

¶30

6. As there was no representation for the first respondent on 14.02.2025, the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2025. Even on 17.02.2025,

¶31

there was no representation for the first respondent and hence, the matter was finally directed to be listed today under the caption “for orders”. Today also there is no representation for the first respondent.

¶32

7. In the light of the above, this Court has no other option except to pass appropriate orders based on the available records and considering the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners.

¶33

8. This Court has carefully gone through the order, dated 02.03.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.No.4028 of 2018 and the other proceedings that are placed before this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners.

¶34

9. From the materials available on record, it is evident that the service of the first respondent was already regularized with effect from 24.01.1995 notionally and his pay was also fixed and he was also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶35

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016

¶38

10. In the light of the above, it is evident that the first respondent is already extended all the service benefits in terms of the order passed by this Court and therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled for the backwages as awarded under the impugned order. Further, the first respondent, having approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4028 of 2018, suppressed about the passing of the impugned award in his favour by the Labour Court declining to grant reinstatement and obtained the benefit of regularization of his service and he is also drawing pension as on date. Hence, the first respondent, who has availed the benefit of the order of this Court, cannot be said to be entitled to make any claim under the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

¶39

11. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 16.09.2015, passed in I.D.No.14 of 2011, on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai, is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

18.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

krk

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.8977 of 2016

¶45

To: