Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs D.Rajendran on 5 August, 2021
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.894 & 882 of 2021
W.A.No.190 of 2021
The Superintending Engineer
Kadamparai General Circle
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Minparai, Coimbatore - 642 101 .. Appellant
Vs
1.D.Rajendran
2.Gopinathan
3.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore. .. Respondents
W.A.No.191 of 2021
The Superintending Engineer
Kadamparai General Circle
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Minparai, Coimbatore - 642 101 .. Appellant
Vs
1.D.Unnikrishnan
2.Gopinathan
3.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 26.03.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.10738 & 10739 of 2010.
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for Mr.T.S.Gopalan and Co
(in both cases)
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ajay Khose for R1
No appearance for R2
R3 - Court
(in both cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
A dispute has been raised by the contesting respondents/first
respondent(s) herein by making a claim invoking Section 2A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, seeking for reinstatement with backwages.
After contest, the award was passed on 17.12.2007 granting
reinstatement with continuity of service along with other attendant
benefits and of course without backwages. The writ petitions filed by
the appellant were dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The sum and substance of the case of the appellant is that the
Scheme does not have application to the contesting respondents as
they were employed with the erstwhile contractor whose services were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
terminated. The Labour Court did not agree with the contentions raised
and passed reinstatement as aforesaid. This was confirmed by the
learned Single Judge by a detailed order, inter alia, holding that the
objection raised is hyper technical on the contention made that the
termination as well as absorption were interlinked. Challenging the
same, the present appeals have been filed.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the earlier
occasion, the First Bench has suggested resolution of the dispute. The
following major issues are accordingly agreed upon:-
(i) The appellant shall issue orders of
appointment to contesting respondents with effect
from 05.08.2005 as given to the other contract
labourers. The said orders would be issued within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
(ii) In terms of the Board proceedings No.14
dated 05.08.2005, 48 persons had been absorbed in
the appellant Hydro Station and therefore, the
contesting respondents would be treated as 49th
and 50th persons and accordingly, fit in the
appropriate post upon joining the duty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
(iii) The contesting respondents would be
deemed to have worked from 05.08.2005 for the
purpose of gratuity, pension and other terminal
benefits as applicable. However, they are not
entitled for any mandatory benefit till they join duty.
(iv) The 17B wages being the last drawn will
have to be paid to the contesting respondents by the
appellant from the date of dismissal of the writ
petitions till the date of issuance of the appointment
orders.
The above are the agreed terms. However, the dispute is with
respect to the appointment as Foremen.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the contesting respondents will have to work for five years as Helpers
and thereafter be appointed as Foremen.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
disputed the aforesaid fact by stating that what they are entitled as a
matter of right cannot be denied. But for the wrong action taken, they
would have been working as of now as Foremen. It is further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
submitted that even as per the agreed terms, the contesting
respondents would be losing substantial amount of money.
6. Considering the aforesaid issue, we are of the view that by
way of exception, the contesting respondents will have to be given
appointment as Foremen. Obviously, the aforesaid orders cannot be
quoted as a precedent. We are conscious of the fact that the role to be
played by this Court, that too, in a writ petition filed and dismissed
confirming the award of the Labour Court, is very limited and
restricted. We believe this order is a fair one and in fact would work in
favour of the appellant. After all, the object is to achieve industrial
peace and harmony. Though we have perused the award of the
Labour Court and that of the learned Single Judge, we refrain
ourselves from going into the issues raised as it might have a financial
implication on the appellant.
7. In such view of the matter, on the facts governing, we are
inclined to direct the appellant to treat the contesting respondents as
Foremen and accordingly, issue orders of appointment to contesting
respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
a copy of this judgment. The other terms being agreed upon, are
expected to be complied with.
8. With the above direction, the writ appeals stand disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (S.K., J.)
05.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
mmi
W.A.Nos.190 & 191 of 2021
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
