Dismissed¶29

M/S.Aruna Steel Rolling Mills, v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC2 Feb 2026WA(MD)/407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021; Aruna Steel Rolling Mills v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai & M.Ramamoorthy; termination of workman for money lending among co-workers disturbing industrial peace; Labour Court award dated 12.01.2009 in I.D.No.141 of 1999 upholding guilt but modifying punishment and granting gratuity on closure of unit; Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act power to modify punishment; single Judge's dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.3970 of 2011 affirmed; writ appeal dismissed on 02.02.2026 by G.R.Swaminathan J. and R.Kalaimathi J.; Clause 15 Letters Patent appeal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal stands dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ¶29

M/S.Aruna Steel Rolling Mills, Vs the Presiding Officer — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal stands dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned single Judge's finding that the private transactions (money lending) among the workmen cannot be taken as having affected the industrial peace of the company can be sustained. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The Division cannot sustain the learned single Judge's finding that private transactions among the workmen did not affect the industrial peace of the company, because the Labour Court had specifically upheld the finding of guilt and also the management's stand that industrial peace was affected on account of the money lending activity of the workmen.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the workman did not choose to challenge the Labour Court award, the question of the learned single Judge interfering with the findings in the writ petition filed by the management did not arise at all.

¶29

Key takeaways

The Labour Court had jurisdiction to modify the punishment in view of the statutory power conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.ratio¶29
Since the Labour Court did not even order reinstatement or backwages, considering the fact that the Unit itself was closed, gratuity alone was ordered to be paid.ratio¶29
Taking into account the fact that the workman had served for 23 years, grant of such relief (gratuity) cannot be said to be incorrect by any standard.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial Disputes Act, S.11A - Writ Appeal by management (M/s.Aruna Steel Rolling Mills) against dismissal of its writ petition challenging Labour Court award in I.D.No.141 of 1999 - Workman M.Ramamoorthy, with 23 years' service, terminated on 12.03.1999 for money lending among co-workers said to have disturbed industrial peace - Labour Court upheld finding of guilt but modified punishment as excessive and, the unit being closed, directed payment of gratuity treating him on par with other workmen - Division holds the learned single Judge erred in finding that private transactions among workmen did not affect industrial peace, since the Labour Court's guilt finding stood and the workman never challenged the award - Labour Court had statutory power under S.11A to modify punishment; with no reinstatement or backwages ordered and the unit closed, gratuity alone was properly granted - Writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 02.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021 & C.M.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2021

¶7

M/s.Aruna Steel Rolling Mills, Ulaganeri, Othakadai, Madurai, through its Partner SV.Pethaperuma ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Complex, Mellur Road, Madurai.

¶10

2.M.Ramamoorthy ... Respondents / Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court dated 07.01.2021 in W.P.(MD)No. 3970 of 2011.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.T.Ravichandran

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.R.J.Karthick for R2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶19

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. One M.Ramamoorthy was employed in the appellant company. He was terminated from service vide order dated 12.03.1999 on the ground that he was engaged in money lending and that disturbed the industrial peace. Challenging the termination order, Ramamoorthy raised industrial dispute and the same was taken on file by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.141 of 1999. The workman examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On the side of the management, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 & R.W.2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R21 were also marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court vide order dated 12.01.2009 even while upholding the finding of guilt, modified the punishment as excessive. Since in the meanwhile industrial establishment itself was closed, the management was directed to pay

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021

¶23

gratuity to the workman by treating him on par with the other workmen. Challenging the said award, the management filed W.P.(MD)No.3970 of 2011. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 07.01.2021. Assailing the same, this writ appeal has been filed by the management.

¶24

It is seen that the workman joined the appellant company way back on 03.01.1976. He had served the company for over 23 years. The charge against the workman was that he had lent money to the other workers and was collecting interest by employing strong-arm methods. This according to the management seriously vitiated the industrial atmosphere.

¶25

3. The learned single Judge has given the finding that the private transactions among the workmen cannot be taken as having affected the industrial peace of the company. We cannot sustain this finding. This is because, the Labour Court had specifically upheld the finding of guilt and also the stand of the management that industrial peace was affected on account of money lending activity on the workmen. The workman did

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021

¶29

not choose to challenge the award. Therefore, the question of the learned single Judge interfering with the findings in the writ petition filed by the management does not arise at all. Be that as it may, the Labour Court eventually had modified the punishment. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to do so in view of the statutory power conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Labour Court did not even order reinstatement or backwages, considering the fact that the Unit itself was closed, gratuity alone was ordered to be paid. Taking into account the fact that the workman had served for 23 years, grant of such relief cannot be said to be incorrect by any standard. The learned single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

(G.R.S., J.) (R.K.M., J.) 02.02.2026

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶32

4/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.A(MD) No.407 of 2021

¶35

¶36