Madras High Court
Kasthuri & Sons Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 April, 2021
W.A.No.133 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.133 of 2020
Kasthuri & Sons Ltd
859-860, Anna Salai
Chennai - 600 002
Rep. Vice President(Legal) ..Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (I2) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Joint Commissioner of Labour,
(Conciliation),
DMS Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court, Chennai.
4.S.Madhavan
5.Ravi
6.S.Sankara
7.M.Dhanushkodi
8.P.Raghu
9.P.Prabhu
10.P.Venkatesan
11.S.Srinivasan
12.K.Rajendran
13.M.S.Arivodainambi ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 6
W.A.No.133 of 2020
Prayer: Appeal filed under 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 18.10.2019 made in W.P.No.28827 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.,
For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj,
Special Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
R3 - Court
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The appellant is the writ petitioner before the learned
Single Judge.
2. This case has got a chequered history. The Award of the
Wage Board dated 11.11.2011 was challenged before the Apex
Court. The Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011 dated
07.02.2014 passed an order wherein the operative portion is
extracted as under:-
"73. In view of our conclusion and dismissal of all the writ
petitions, the wages as revised/determined shall be
payable from 11.11.2011 when the Government of Indian
notified the recommendations of the Majithia Wage
Boards. All the arrears up to March,2014 shall be paid to
all eligible persons in four equal instalments within a
period of one year from today and continue to pay the
revised wages from April, 2014 onwards."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.133 of 2020
3. The dispute arose with respect to the implementation.
The question for consideration is the recommendation of the
relevant period. Accordingly, the Government Order has been
passed in G.O.(ID).No.144, Labour and Employment (12)
Department, dated 27.01.2016. The following is the operative
portion of the aforesaid Government Order mentioning the issue of
reference:
"9. Let us now look into the impugned Reference made by
the Government in G.O.(ID).No.441 dated 21.07.2016,
which read as follows:
"2. As the quantum of dearness amount payable to
the petitioner Thiru S.Madhavan and 181 other
employees as per the recommendations of the
Majithia Wage Board is disputed the Commissioner of
Labour, in the letter second read above, has
recommended that the following issue may be
referred for adjudication to the Principal Labour
Court, Chennai under Section 17(2) of the Working
Journalists and other News Paper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955.
ISSUE OF REFERENCE
To decide whether the Petitioner Thiru S.Madhavan and
181 others are entitled for the difference of dearness
allowance for the period from 11.1.2011 as per the Award
of the Majithia Wage Board from the management of "The
Hindu" Chennai. If so, to what remedy they are entitled
to."
4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that
the order of the Apex Court cannot be a ground for reference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.133 of 2020
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that in the computation petition, earlier the period was modified by
the Apex Court has also been included for the purpose of payment
of dearness allowance.
6. The party-in-person, who is appearing before this Court
submitted that what he wants is the adjudication before the Labour
Court.
7. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Therefore, the
question for consideration is with respect to the difference of
dearness allowance for the period from 11.11.2011. On that basis,
the actual relief will have to be worked out. The judgment cannot be
read like a statute. Certainly, the order passed required to be
interpreted and, therefore, the Labour Court is well within its
jurisdiction to decide the reference made. After all, the respondents
want the adjudication by a judicial forum on the issue of reference.
Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However,
we left all the issues open to be decided by the Labour Court. We
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.133 of 2020
expect the Labour Court not to be influenced by any of the
observations made either by the learned Single Judge or by us. No
costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.1863 of 2020 is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
29.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
ssm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (I2) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Joint Commissioner of Labour,
(Conciliation),
DMS Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.133 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
(ssm)
W.A.No.133 of 2020
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
