Madras High Court
I.Dakshinamurthy vs South Petrochemical Industries ... on 2 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.356 of 2021
I.Dakshinamurthy ..Appellant
Vs
1.South Petrochemical Industries Corporation
Ltd., SPIC Building,
No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai – 32
rep. By its Authorized Signatory
2.The Presiding Officer,
III Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 18.09.2019 made in W.P.No.267 of 2016.
For Appellant .. Mr.A.K.R.Ravi
For Respondents .. Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co. for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by learned
single Judge dated 18 September 2019 in the group of petitions being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1541 of 2016 and cognate writ petitions. The present
appellant was the second respondent in W.P.No.267 of 2016.
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently
submitted that the interference by learned singe Judge in the award
passed by the Labour Court conferring terminal benefits to the
present appellant was unjustified since according to him, the service
conditions of the present appellant were protected in the year 1990
when he was transferred from the Petrochemical Corporation to its
Pharmaceutical Division. It is submitted that the Labour Court had, on
the basis of material placed before it rightly arrived at the conclusion
that the appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits and interference
therein by learned single Judge is unjustified. It is submitted that this
appeal be entertained.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the first respondent
(management – original writ petitioner) has submitted that the
appellant was not entitled to pension as claimed by him since he was
offered retirement pursuant to the Special Retirement Scheme offered
by the management and agreed by the union and therefore conferring
that benefit by Labour Court was beyond the scope of settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
between the parties and the same is rightly interfered with by
learned single Judge. It is submitted that no interference be made by
this Court and this appeal be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that:
5.1 The point at issue before Labour Court was whether the
present appellant, who had opted for voluntary retirement because of
the closure of the Pharmaceutical Division of the company, was
entitled to the benefits which were not stipulated in the retirement
scheme.
5.2 We find that the Labour Court did not formulate that point
at all. Labour Court instead formulated various points and according
to learned advocate for the appellant had rightly answered the same.
Since we find that the right question was not formulated at all we
have not considered the finding recorded by the Labour Court for the
purpose of deciding this appeal.
5.3 Learned single Judge on the other hand has addressed the
question posed in the writ petition and came to the conclusion that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
what was claimed by the present appellant was beyond the scheme of
retirement which was offered to him and which he had accepted. No
relief could have been therefore granted to him. The grant of relief by
the Labour Court was therefore rightly interfered with by learned
single Judge.
5.4. We do not find any error in the order passed by learned
single Judge which may call for any interference in this appeal.
6. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
02.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/11
To
The Presiding Officer,
III Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.356 of 2021
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
