Madras High Court
A.Veyagulasamy vs The Management Of State Express ... on 19 August, 2021
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 19.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6685 of 2021
in
W.A.(MD)No.1045 of 2020
A.Veyagulasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Management of State Express Transport
Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 02.
2.The General Manager,
The State Express Transport
Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 02.
3.The Assistant Manager,
(Legal & Personnel)
The State Express Transport
Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd.,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 02. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the
judgment dated 30.07.2021 made in W.A.(MD)No.1045 of 2020.
For Review Petitioner : Mr.CK.Chandrasekkar
For Respondents : Mr.Raja Murugan
Standing Counsel
*****
ORDER
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
This review application is filed to review the judgment dated 30.07.2021
made in W.A.(MD)No.1045 of 2020. The said writ appeal was filed by the
Transport Corporation as against the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(MD)No.642 of 2020, dated 13.02.2020. The writ petition was filed by the
review petitioner challenging the order of recovery of the third respondent dated
27.05.2019. By this impugned order, the respondent Corporation has directed
the review petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.97,500/- together with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum payable from 30.06.2019 towards the recovery of the
non-implemented punishment of increment cuts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
2.The review petitioner was imposed with a stoppage of increment during
his service period and the same could not be implemented. Therefore, the
respondents sought to recover the same from the review petitioner by the
impugned order. The learned Single Judge by order dated 13.02.2020 allowed
the writ petition that the Certified Standing Orders does not empower the
respondent Corporation to recover the amount paid to the retired employee for
recovery of non-implemented punishments of increment cuts. The writ appeal
has been preferred by the Department on the ground that as per the settlement
u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act entered into on 04.01.2018 between the
trade union and the management, especially, clause 8 of the settlement, the
respondent Corporation is empowered to recover the unrecovered amount. The
review petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2019, whereas, the order of
recovery was passed as early as on 27.05.2019. Therefore, the writ appeal was
decided based on the settlement u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated
04.01.2018.
3.Now, this review application has been filed by the petitioner on the
ground that in the case of Management of TNSTC (Kumbakonam) Ltd., and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
Others v. J.Arumugam, in W.A.(MD)No.465 of 2017 etc., batch, dated
30.06.2017, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in the absence of any
provision in the Certified Standing Orders enabling the management to pass
orders of recovery, there cannot be any recovery subsequent to the retirement. It
was further held that common service rules are not applicable to the workman
and that Certified Standing Orders do not provide for any such recovery.
Therefore, until and unless the statutory provision namely the Certified
Standing Orders was amended, the settlement cannot override the statute,
especially, when it had an effect on the benefit conferred on the employee. The
appeal preferred by the respondent Corporation in this regard before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.1755 of 2018 was dismissed on
09.02.2018.
4.Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that a similar such
view was taken by yet another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.
1270 of 2020, dated 15.06.2021. He further submitted that the above facts have
not been placed properly before the Court, in view of the present day situation
and that too, when the Courts are functioning virtually.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
5.Since the petitioners have made out a prima facie case, this Court feels
that the writ appeal has to be re-heard. Registry is to list the writ appeal for
disposal during the third week of September 2021.
6.The review application is allowed to this limited extent. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[N.K.K.J.,] [ B.P.J.,]
19.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.,
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
gk
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.68 of 2021
19.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
