The Management Of Tamilnadu ... vs The Presiding Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 15128 Mad

                                                                          W.A.No.1964 of 2019

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 28.07.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                       and
                                       THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                               W.A.No.1964 of 2019

                      The Management of Tamilnadu Minerals
                      Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
                      19, D-11, K.K.Nagar,
                      Ariyalur, Perambalur District.                              .. Appellant

                                                        Vs

                      1.The Presiding Officer,
                        Central Government Industrial Tribunal
                             cum Labour Court,
                        Shastri Bhavan, Chennai.

                      2.T.Kandasamy                                          .. Respondents


                            Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order

                      dated 15.04.2013 made in W.P.No.6281 of 2005.


                            For Appellant          :     Mr.R.Bala Ramesh

                            For Respondents        :     R1 - Court
                                                         Mr.P.Valliappan for R2




                      Page 1 of 4


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                          W.A.No.1964 of 2019



                                                   JUDGMENT

(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the

order of the learned single Judge, who having found that the order of

dismissal being one of retrenchment as the charge is one of

unauthorised absence, which also occasioned due to the inability of

the respondent in attending the work as he was arrested in

connection with a criminal case, subsequently acquitted, nonetheless

directed reinstatement with 30% backwages for non-compliance of

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do find

some force in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the

appellant. However, much water has flown under the bridge. The

respondent has been reinstated and has attained the age of

superannuation. Therefore, the only other question for consideration

is with respect to the backwages. Law is quite settled as of now on

the non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

There is no question of reinstatement with backwages since it is only

a procedural violation.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.1964 of 2019

3.In such view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere with

the order of the learned single Judge only to the extent of payment of

backwages at 30% and accordingly, the same is set aside. However,

in all other respects, namely reinstatement and continuity of service,

the order of the learned single Judge stands confirmed.

4.In view of the above, the writ appeal stands allowed in part.

No costs.

                                                               (M.M.S., J.)    (R.N.M., J.)
                                                                       28.07.2021
                      Index:Yes/No
                      mmi/ssm


                      To
                      The Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.1964 of 2019

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and R.N.MANJULA,J.

mmi

W.A.No.1964 of 2019

28.07.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in