Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Water And Drainage ... vs The Labour Court on 22 February, 2021
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
1.The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Executive Engineer,
The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board,
RWS Division,
84, Bharathi Main Road,
N.T.R Nagar,
Theni. ... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Labour Court,
Madurai.
2.S.Jeyaraman ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 29.11.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.13591 of 2011
on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Ms.Porkodi Karnan
For R – 2 : Mr.T.Ravichandran
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board is the appellant,
challenging the order, dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P(MD)No.13591 of 2011, refusing to interfere with the
impugned order in C.P.No.94 of 2006, dated 28.07.2011 passed by
the first respondent-Labour Court, Madurai.
2.The issue revolves around the employment of the second
respondent, one S.Jeyaraman. He was appointed as Watchman in the
Cumbum Division of the appellant/Board on 22.01.1986 as a daily
wager and he worked for 89 days. Thereafter, on 15.11.1987, he was
ousted from service. Once again, when there was a requirement for a
Watchman, the second appellant had appointed him as Watchman on
01.07.1988. Once again, he was removed from service from
12.06.1989 orally. Therefore, the second respondent approached the
Labour Court by raising an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.570 of 1989.
An award was passed in favour of the second respondent on
21.09.1992, directing the appellants to reinstate him with back-wages
and continuity of service. Though the order was passed in the year
1992, the second appellant/Board had absorbed the second
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
respondent into service only on 04.02.1995, once again as a daily
wager. While so, an award under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act was arrived at on 08.08.1996, wherein, the
appellant/Board had regularized the daily wagers and to pay a sum of
Rs.100/- per year during the employment period and no pay would be
made during the period in which the employee was unemployed.
3.It would be useful to refer to Clause (5) of the Board
Proceedings No.264, dated 19.09.1996, for easy understanding, which
reads as follows:-
“5.jpdg; gzpahsh;fis epue;juk; bra;tJ Fwpj;j gpur;ridapy;
bjhHpyhsh;fis gzp ePf;fk; bra;J mt;thW bra;jJ rhp ,y;iy vd
ePjpkd;wk; mspj;j jPh;gg; pid vjph;;j;J mg;gPy; bra;j tHf;Ffs; jpUk;gg;
bgwg;gl;L> mth;fSf;F gzp epue;juk;> gzp bra;j fhyj;jpw;F gpd;
rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju nfhhpf;iffSf;F gjpyhf 1 tUl rh;tPRf;F
&.100/- tPjk; fzf;fpl;L tHq;fg;gLk;. 6 khjk; my;yJ mjw;F
nkw;gl;l rh;tP]; xU tUlkhf tHq;fg;gLk;. 6 khjj;jpw;Fs; ,Ue;jhy;
mJ fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;glkhl;lhJ. nkYk; gzp ePf;f
fhyj;jpw;F Typ ju ntz;Lk; vd ePjpkd;w
cj;jut[ ,Ue;jhy;> ,t;thW mg;gPYs;s tHf;Ffis bghWj;jtiu
mf;fhyj;jpw;F jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; kl;Lk; epYit tHq;fg;gLk;.”
As per the last condition in the above clause, if already there was an
order by the Court, the same would be honoured based on daily
wages.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
4.Admittedly, in this case, the second respondent had obtained
an award in his favour on 21.09.1992, which was implemented only
on 04.02.1995 as a daily wager. Therefore, the second respondent is
entitled for the wages from 12.06.1986 to 03.02.1995. As the said
amounts were not paid, a claim petition was filed in C.P.No.94 of 2006
before the Labour Court, Madurai, which was allowed in favour of the
second respondent on 28.07.2011, wherein, it is specifically held that
subsequent to 12(3) Settlement entered into between the workmen
and management, superseding the order passed in I.D.No.570 of
1989, which is without jurisdiction and directed the appellants to pay
the outstanding wages to the second respondent from 12.06.1986 to
03.02.1995. The said award is under challenge by the Board.
5.It is admitted that the earlier award in I.D.No.570 of 1989,
dated 21.09.1982 was not challenged by the Board and the same has
attained its finality. Even as per 12(3) Settlement, it will not take away
the right which was crystallized prior to the said Settlement.
6.The learned Single Judge has also rightly observed the same
and dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant-Board and there is no
merit in the case to interfere with the same. We are of the opinion
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
that the Writ Appeal has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal
is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
22.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate
/ litigant concerned.
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Executive Engineer,
The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board,
RWS Division,
84, Bharathi Main Road,
N.T.R Nagar,
Theni.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.33 of 2012
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
