K.Raghunathan vs The Presiding Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 15032 Mad

                                                                              W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 27.07.2021

                                                             CORAM

                                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
                                                    AND
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                               W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

                     K.Raghunathan                      ..     Appellant in W.A.No.1180 of 2017
                     P.Velu                             ..     Appellant in W.A.No.1181 of 2017
                     P.Sekar                            ..     Appellant in W.A.No.1182 of 2017

                                                              -vs-

                     1. The Presiding Officer
                        Labour Court
                        Salem 636 007

                     2. The Management of Tamil Nadu
                        State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
                        rep.by its Managing Director
                        Ramakrishna Road
                        Salem 636 007                ..   Respondents in all the Writ Appeals
                               Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
                     dated 29.06.2017 made in W.P.Nos.27878, 29100 & 29157 of 2010,
                     respectively.

                                     For Appellants            ::    Mr.S.Ayyathurai
                                     For Respondents           ::    R1-Court
                                                                     Mr.D.Raghu for R2

                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

                                                       JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

These writ appeals have been directed against the order passed in the

writ petitions, wherein the learned single Judge, finding that the appellants,

while serving as Cook, Bearer, Cleaner, etc., were terminated in the year

1990 and thereafter have approached the Labour Court, Salem on the

ground that when they have put in 240 days of service in a calendar year,

they cannot be terminated without following the mandatory conditions

mentioned in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, enhancing the

compensation awarded by the Labour Court from Rs.25,000/- to

Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the appellants, has directed the second respondent-

Management to pay the said amount of compensation within twelve weeks

time, after deducting Rs.25,000/- that was already received by each of them.

2. We have also gone through the award and also the order passed by

the learned single Judge. The Labour Court, Salem, while dealing with the

contentions raised by both parties, came to the conclusion that the

appellants cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be reinstated in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

service with backwages in every case, because they were terminated from

1.3.90 onwards and nearly after a period of nine long years, they had

approached the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court, finding that the

appellants were engaged as daily wagers and have completed 480 days of

service in 24 calendar months and they have been terminated without

complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act and that 15 long years had gone by, ordered for payment of Rs.25,000/-

as compensation to the appellants. When the said award was put to

challenge in the writ petitions, the learned single Judge has enhanced the

compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the appellants, considering the fact

that the canteen run by the second respondent Management in which the

appellants were working, was also given on lease to private contractors,

therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise. We also agree with

the said findings. Since the canteen in which the appellants were engaged

has also been given on lease to private contractors, the direction given by

the learned single Judge to the second respondent Management to pay a sum

of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to each of the appellants, after deducting

Rs.25,000/- already received by them pursuant to the award, being

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

reasonable, requires no interference, Therefore, rejecting the request of the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant for further enhancement, these

writ appeals are dismissed. Needless to state that the second respondent

Management shall pay the balance compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to each of

the appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.

                     Speaking/Non speaking order                          (T.R.,J.)     (V.S.G., J.)
                     Index : yes/no                                              27.07.2021

                     ss

                     To

                     1. The Presiding Officer
                        Labour Court
                        Salem 636 007

                     2. The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Ramakrishna Road Salem 636 007

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

T.RAJA, J.

and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

ss

W.A.Nos.1180 to 1182 of 2017

27.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/