Madras High Court
Duraisamy vs The Presiding Officer on 14 December, 2021
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.2556 of 2013 and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
Duraisamy ... Appellant
v.
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
2. The Manager,
Kallur Estate, Soolaiyur Post,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order in W.P.No.36063 of 2002, dated 18.8.2012 and thereby
allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr. S.T.Varadha Rajulu
For Respondents : R1 - Court
Mr. Anand Gopalan - R2
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.36063 of 2002, the Writ
Petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.
2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the award
made in I.D.No.193 of 1998, dated 07.01.2002 in so far as the denial of
back wages to him, quash the same and the consequential order
directing the 2nd respondent to pay back wages payable to the petitioner
with interest and other costs.
3. The short point that arise for consideration in this Writ Appeal
is whether the appellant is entitled to back wages for the period
commencing from 22.11.1997 to 07.01.2002.
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
4.1 The appellant was placed under suspension on 11.07.1997 and
subsequently was terminated from service on 27.11.1997. The appellant
along with two co-employees, viz., Periyasamy and Chelladurai,
challenged the order of termination by raising Industrial Dispute in
I.D.No.193 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore and the
Labour Court, by its Award dated 07.01.2002, directed the 2nd
respondent to reinstate the appellant back in service continuity of service.
While ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court, did not give any
direction to pay back wages for the period from 22.11.1997 to
07.01.2002.
4.2 Challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, the
appellant filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 36063 of 2002 and the
learned Single Judge, by order dated 16.08.2012, confirmed the order
passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition.
4.3 Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant has filed the above Writ Appeal.
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
5. Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent-Management submitted that the quantum of compensation for
the period from 22.11.1997 to 07.01.2002 comes to Rs.1,33,000/-.
Further, the learned counsel submitted that theThe Labour Court, while
ordering reinstatement without back wages, took into consideration the
award passed in I.D. No.191 of 1998 filed by the co-employee, viz.,
Periyasamy, who was also directed to be reinstated without back wages.
6. From the materials available on record placed before this Court,
it could be seen that even the Labour Court had observed that the
appellant was struggling without job and that an opportunity should be
given to him to correct himself. He remained jobless for nearly four
years. On reinstatement, the appellant worked to the satisfaction of the
Management and attained superannuation. The appellant has also
established his case before the Labour Court by adducing oral and
documentary evidences.
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
7. It is also the contention of the appellant that the other two
employees viz., Periyasamy and Chelladurai, who were also terminated
and denied the back wages, had approached this Court by filing Writ
Petitions and during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, they came
forward to settle their dispute with the Management and on the basis of
the settlement, two sons of Periyasamy were given employment by the
Management and a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- was also paid to him. In respect
of Chelladurai, as he died, the gratuity and other service benefits were
given. However, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent denied the
said contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Since the quantum of back wages is only Rs.1,33,000/- , we are
of the considered view that the 2nd respondent can be directed to pay a
consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh only] inclusive of
interest for the reason that the appellant had discharged his duties to the
satisfaction of the 2nd respondent-Management.
9. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.36063 of 2002 is modified by giving a direction to the 2nd
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
respondent-Management to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
[Rupees one lakh only] inclusive of interest to the appellant, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
With these observations, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
14.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Rj
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
2. The Manager,
Kallur Estate, Soolaiyur Post,
Coimbatore District.
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2556 of 2013
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD ,J
Rj
W.A.No.2556 of 2013 and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
14.12.2021
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
