Madras High Court
The Management vs M.Mahendran on 22 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4976 of 2021
1.The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Madurai Kottam,
Puravalisalai,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Manager,
Department of Labour Welfare,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Madurai Kottam,
Puravalisalai,
Madurai. : Appellants
Vs.
1.M.Mahendran
2.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
(Chairman of the Board of Directors of all
State Transport Undertakings],
Undertakings,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 30.10.2019, in W.P.(MD)No.19740 of
2019 and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Subash Babu
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellants, Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned Counsel for the
first respondent and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the second respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated
30.10.2019, in W.P.(MD)No.19740 of 2019, filed by the first respondent
herein for a relief of issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
quash the order passed by the second appellant dated 30.08.2019 and to
direct the second appellant to pay pension.
3.The writ petition has been allowed by the impugned order. The
learned Counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the
first respondent was involved in a criminal case and he had undergone
life imprisonment and by virtue of the order passed in the writ petition,
the appellant Transport Corporation is compelled to pay the wages for
the period during which he was confined in the prison.
4.In our considered view, the said contention cannot be taken to
test the correctness of the order passed in the writ petition because the
respondent had raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.8 of 1993, on the
file of the Labour Court, Madurai and the Labour Court by award dated
13.11.2008, directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without
backwages. In spite of the award having been passed for over 2 ½ years,
the appellant Management did not reinstate the first respondent.
Therefore, the first respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.3832 of 2011, to direct
the appellant Management to implement the award of the Labour Court.
By order dated 20.04.2011, the writ petition was disposed of directing the
second appellant to reinstate the first respondent within a time frame
pursuant to which the first respondent was reinstated on 16.03.2013,
with continuity of service but without backwages. Subsequently, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
31.05.2019, the first respondent attained the age of superannuation.
However, his request for pension was rejected by the appellants on the
ground that the first respondent had worked only for a period of 5 years 9
months and 2 days and in terms of Rule 16(a)(i) of the Pension Rules, the
first respondent is not entitled for pension. That order was put to
challenge in the writ petition.
5.In our considered view, the learned Writ Court rightly held
that the award of reinstatement having been made with continuity of
service but only denial of backwages, the period during which the
appellant was out of employment should be reckoned for the limited
purpose of computing the total length of service. Therefore, the appellant
Management cannot contend the Labour Court having denied the
backwages, they will not count the services of the first respondent. One
more aspect that will preclude the appellants from challenging the order
passed in the writ petition is that the appellants did not challenge the
award passed by the Labour Court. Thus, we find no grounds to interfere
with the order passed in the writ petition.
6.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and dismissed. The
appellants shall properly compute the period of service and disburse the
same to the first respondent within a period of three [3] months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
22.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
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
The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
(Chairman of the Board of Directors of all
State Transport Undertakings],
Undertakings,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1157 of 2021
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
