The Management vs The Vellore And Tiruvannamalai ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9866 Mad

                                                                                      W.P.No.18990 of 2019

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 19.04.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                              W.P.No.18990 of 2019 and
                                        W.M.P.Nos.18335 of 2019 & 18948 of 2020
            The Management,
            The Vellore District Consumer,
            Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.,
            rep. by its Managing Director,
            No.14, Office line,
            Vellore-632 001.                                                              ... Petitioner
                                                             -vs-

            1.The Vellore and Tiruvannamalai District,
              Consumer Co-operative Wholesale
               Stores Employees Union,
              rep. by its President,
              R.Kothandan, AITUC,
              Reg.No.43/NAT,
              No.37, Thennamata Street,
              Vellore, Vellore District.

            2.The Presiding Officer,
              Principal Labour Court,
              Vellore, Vellore District.                                               ... Respondents
            Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the
            issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the order passed by the second
            respondent in C.P. No.99 of 2017 dated 28.02.2019 and quash the same.

                                      For Petitioner      : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy

                                      For Respondents : Mr.Balan Haridas for R1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
            1/8
                                                                                       W.P.No.18990 of 2019

                                                      ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order in C.P. No.99 of 2017

dated 28.02.2019, passed by the second respondent / Principal Labour Court, Vellore,

by which the Petitioner / Management was directed to pay Rs.65,70,600/- to employees

of the Union listed in the calculation memo dated 28.11.2018 within three months.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Union submitted that though the

employees, who were represented through Union, claimed a sum of Rs.2,27,77,538/-

from the Management, they have restricted their claim to Rs.65,70,600/- and the said

claim was based on two settlements dated 26.06.2009 and 24.10.2011 (Ex.Ps.7 & 8),

entered into between the Union and the Management under Section 12(3) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Management contended that the Union

cannot file a claim petition on behalf of the retired employees, as the claim should have

been made by the individual retired employees either separately or jointly and Union

has no locus to file computation petition under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947. It is further contended that once an undertaking has been given by

the employees, they have no right to claim any amount, much less the restricted amount

mentioned supra. It is also contended that the claim has been raised by the Union only

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

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

in the year 2017, which has been hit by limitation under which the employees are not

entitled to the benefits.

4. Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel appearing for the Union submitted that

even though there is no provision for the Union to claim the benefits by filing the

application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, Union has got every right to espouse

the cause of Workmen and there was no undertaking given by the Workmen. The claim

of the Workmen should not be deprived by the Management merely on the basis of the

the indemnity bond, as no indemnity bond can take away the rights contemplated under

the settlement entered into between the parties under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

He further submitted that there is no limitation for making a claim due to the employees

under Section 33(C)(2) r/w 33(C)(5) of the ID Act and, the employees can, at the most,

be deprived interest, but not the entire benefits.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material

documents available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that there are two settlement deeds, namely 26.06.2009 and

24.10.2011, which have been marked as Ex.Ps.7 and P8. The claim has been made in

the year 2017. The argument of the Management that, the claim is barred by the

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

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

principle of limitation appears to be fantasy, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court

made in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva and Others, reported in 1963 (2) LLJ

608, in which the contention of the Management therein with regard to limitation was

aspect was rejected, holding that limitation cannot be introduced by industrial

adjudication on academic ground of social justice and the same can be introduced, if at

all, by the legislature only. In yet another case, Apex Court in Chief Mining Engineer,

East India Coal Co. Ltd. vs Rameswar and Others, reported in (1968) I LLJ 6 (SC),

reiterated that the period of three years of limitation applies to applications for payment

by the Commissioner from the deposit made in the treasury and has no application to

claims under Section 33C(2) which makes no provision for limitation. Subsequent

thereto, the Supreme Court in Town Municipal, Council, Athani vs. The Presiding

Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli and Others, reported in 1969 II LLJ 651 went on to add

that Article 137 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to

applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

7. From the judgments cited supra, it is amply clear that the plea of limitation

cannot be accepted and is not available to the Management, so as to deprive the claim of

employees and the Labour Court cannot restrict the claim of the Workman based on the

undertaking / indemnity bond. It is no doubt true that the benefits accrued by means of

settlement, except like gratuity, can be given up by the employees by way of entering

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

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

into a subsequent settlement. But, in the present case on hand, there is neither a

subsequent settlement nor there is a clause to the extent of giving up the benefits. At the

same time, in case the dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity, no settlement or

agreement can be entered into by giving up the benefits under the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972, whereas the monetary benefits that may arise under the Award, can be given

by the employees, provided there is a settlement or the agreement to that effect. In this

case, there is no such agreement / settlement to the effect that the Workmen would not

be entitled to claim the amount mentioned supra. However, the Workmen would not be

entitled to interest on the computed amount from 2009 till the date of the claim petition,

and they are entitled to interest only from the date of claim petition till the amount is

actually paid with regard to the claim made by the Workers.

8. The contention of the Management that the claim made by the Union under

Section 33(C)(2) is not maintainable, cannot be accepted. The main object of enactment

of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, being a social welfare legislature, is to

render justice to both the Management and the Workmen, as the preamble of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 itself states that the purpose of the I.D.Act, 1947 is 'to

make provisions for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for

certain other purposes'. Merely because most of the employees retired from service, it

does not mean that the Union is excluded from espousing the cause of the Workmen and

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

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

the claim of Workmen cannot be restricted on technical grounds. The primary purpose

of the section being to provide the aggrieved Workman with a forum similar to the

Executing Courts, it calls for a broad and beneficial construction consistently with other

provisions of the Act, which should serve to advance the remedy and to suppress the

mischief.

9. This Court, in a case arising out of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments

(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen Act') [Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd

(Rep. by its Chief Executive), Madras vs. Muthialpet Benefit Fund Staff Union (Rep.

by its Secretary) and another, reported in 2002 (2) LLN 427] had rejected the plea

raised by the Management therein that the aggrieved employees alone need to file an

application, seeking permanent status, holding that in case Union discloses the name of

the employees, for whom the relief sought for, such application for permanent status is

maintainable. That apart, a glance at Form-U r/w Rule 66 of The Tamil Nadu Industrial

Disputes Rules, 1958 would make it clear that the Union is empowered to espouse the

cause of Workmen for recovery of the amount. The purpose of the social enactment is to

get redressal and not to throw the meritorious case on technical grounds.

10. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the afore-stated judgments, this

Writ Petition is dismissed, except interfering with the interest portion alone, as this

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

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

Court do not find any merit or substance whatsoever in the contention raised by the

Management. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Management is liable to pay

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

11. Before parting with this order, this Court wants to emphasize that Legislature

must think of amending the I.D.Act, 1947, so as to restrict the period of making a claim

under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947, as there is a provision under Section (C)

(1) of the Act, 1947, prescribing limitation. Such amendment will ensure that the

employees approach the Court within the time prescribed under the I.D.Act, 1947.

Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 must be amended, restricting the time limit as

three years like the period of limitation prescribed under Section 2-A of the I.D.Act,

1947 with effect from 15.09.2010. Unless a time limit is stipulated in the Act by the

Legislature, several number of cases will get piled up in Courts with enormous delay.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna District Co-operative Marketing

Society Limited vs. N.V.Purnachandra Rao, (1987) 4 SCC 99, too had suggested for

amendment of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

19.04.2021 Index: Yes / No Speaking order /Non speaking order vum https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., vum

W.P.No.18990 of 2019

19.04.2021

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