Madras High Court
72 T.Srinivasan vs 3 A.P.Santhanam on 28 June, 2021
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
1 V.SUGUMARAN
2 N.KRISHNAMURTHY
3 V.ARAVAMUTHAN
4 P.SOMASUNDARAM
5 P.KRISHNAMURTHY
6 G.SHANTHA
7 M.MEENAKSHI
8 K.SRIDHARAN
9 M.R.GOWRI
10 S.K.SRINIVASAN
11 S.GOTHANDAM
12 S.NEELAKANDAN
13 O.P.SUBRAMANIAN
14 S.JAYASREE
15 L.SHEIK HASKIM
16 V.SEKAR
17 C.SRINIVASAN
18 S.SIVAKUMAR
19 J.KRISHNAN
20 N.SANKARAN
21 R.RAJU
22 S.SUBRAMANIAM
23 D.SIVAKUMAR
24 R.PARTHASARATHY
25 A.SUDHAKAR
26 A.DHANAPAL
27 V.SELVARAJ
28 V.ARUMUGAM
29 P.NATARAJAN
30 D.VELAPPAN
.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
31 G.CHANDRASEKAR
32 S.MUNINAGARATHINAM
33 S.SUNDARASEKARAN
34 S.PALANI
35 K.JAYAKUMAR
36 K.DEVAN
37 K.MANI
38 Y.JAYAKUMAR
39 S.R.CHANDRASEKARAN
40 T.MANI
41 D.SANTHANAM
42 M.ROSEBAI
43 V.PALANISAMY
44 M.RAMACHANDRAN
45 R.VASUDEVAN
46 V.GOVINDASAMY
47 R.MAGENDRAN
48 B.POONGOTHAI
49 S.ARUNACHALAM
50 S.RAVIKUMAR
51 K.SHANKARAN
52 N.MUVAR SULTANA
53 P.THANGARAJ
54 P.DHANALAKSHMI
55 N.RAMANATHAN
56 K.BHARATHI
57 M.SELVARAJ
58 P.R.RAJESWARI
59 S.KANNAN
60 K.SOMASUNDARM
61 A.VELAYUTHAM
62 T.R.KALYANI
63 R.NAGARATHINAM
64 E.RAJESWARI
65 V.SUNDARI
66 S.R.RAVISANKAR
67 P.N.RAGHURAMAN
68 K.DAYALAN
69 S.HEMALATHA
70 S.JAYAM
71 S.MOHAN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/10
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
72 T.SRINIVASAN
73 S.V.SANKAR
74 C.S.SRINIVASAN
75 USHARANI VENKATESAN
76 V.SEKAR
77 D.DHANAPALAN
78 P.P.RAMANATHAN
79 K.SRINIVASAN .. Appellants
Versus
1 THE MANAGINGDIRECTOR
M/S PENTAFOUR PRODUCTS LTD REGD OFF CHITRA
TOWERS NO.120/C ARCOT ROAD KODAMBAKKAM CH-24
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MD
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER
FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
3 A.P.SANTHANAM
4 G.SWATHANTHRA
5 N.KUTTY
6 K.PADMAVATHI
7 S.KATHIRVEL MURUGAN
8 S.ABDUL HAKKIM
9 T.SUBRAMANIAN
10 C.R.RAMA RAO
11 S.SUKUMAR
12 R.BASKARAN
13 N.VASU
14 E.SAMUEL
15 VELAYUTHAM
16 J.NAGARAJAN
17 N.VENKATASUBRAMANIAM
18 R.DAYALAN
19 R.BHARATHAN
20 R.PARTHASARATHY
21 JEBARAJ
22 G.SRINIVASAN
23 N.VIJAYAN
24 P.RAMANATHAN
25 M.THANGARAJ .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/10
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order
dated 05.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.15640 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellants :Mr.K.S.Viswanathan
For R1 : Mr.Shivathanu Mohan
for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates
For R2 : Court
For R3 to R25 : Given up
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
The appellants have filed this writ appeal challenging the impugned order dated
05.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15640 of 2007, by which, the order
passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in C.P.No.352 of 2001, dated 24.10.2001
directing the first respondent/Pentafour Products Limited, Auto Division, Chennai, to pay
certain arrear amount to the workmen/appellants herein, was reversed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials
available before us.
3. The first respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act.
The appellants and the respondents 3 to 25 were working as employees of the respondent
company for the past several years. Whileso, since the respondent company had incurred
huge loss, it had declared suspension of operation on 01.08.2001. Therefore, it was
referred to BIFR as a sick company for providing a rehabilitation scheme. Pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
proceedings, Madras-Chenglepet General Workers' Union, in which, the appellants were
also members, raised an industrial dispute on 12.03.2001 stating that the suspension of
operation was illegal. Thereafter, after the failure report dated 22.08.2001 submitted by the
Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, the State Government referred the dispute
for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal at Chennai, on 14.02.2003. The Tribunal, by
its award dated 21.02.2006 passed in I.D.No.32 of 2003, held that suspension of operation
was illegal and void and further held that workmen were entitled to get reinstatement
together with wages as well as other attendant benefits from the date on which the
management gave the notice for suspending its operation i.e., on 01.08.2001. Subsequent
to the award, a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short “ID
Act”) was reached on 19.04.2006 between the first respondent management and the
appellants' union, in which, Clause 3 of the Terms of the Settlement dated 19.04.2006 reads
as follows:-
“3. That the amount specified in the annexure shall be
accepted and is received by each workmen as full and final settlement of
all claims due from the company on the clear understanding that there
will be no claim whatsoever by any worker or workmen against the
management thereafter as the claim proceedings initiated before
the Labour forum are withdrawn and the Court award in
I.D.No.32 of 2003 is treated as not pressed and settled.”
The above said document was marked as Ex.R4 and during the course of examination, the
first appellant, who was examined as PW.1 has admitted the existence of settlement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
Learned Single Judge, by taking note of the above said document and also citing various
legal precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that the Labour Court is not competent
to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act to arrogate to itself the
functions of an Industrial Tribunal, and accordingly, learned Single Judge reversed the
order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.724 of 2002, dated 13.02.2007.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the Labour
Court had already passed an award in I.D.No.32 of 2003, dated 21.02.2006, holding that the
suspension of operation by the respondent company was illegal, which also became final
and concluded, it goes without saying that pre-existing rights adjudicated upon by the
appellants have been once for all decided. Therefore, it is not open to the learned Single
Judge to hold that without having pre-existing rights, they cannot lay their claims under
Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. In addition thereto, he has also contended that settlement
reached under Section 12(3) on 19.04.2006 clearly says that there was a pre-existing rights
and therefore, it is not correct to say that the appellants are not having pre-existing rights
to lay their claim under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.
5. But we are unable to find any merits therein. At the outset, it may be mentioned
that after the suspension of operation on 01.08.2001, there was a dispute between the
appellants' union and the first respondent management and thereafter, the matter was
conciliated before the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
but, since it was ended in failure, the Government, by order dated 14.02.2003, referred the
dispute before the Industrial Tribunal at Chennai for adjudication. The Tribunal, after
hearing both parties, by award dated 21.02.2006 passed in I.D.No.32 of 2003, held
suspension of operation was illegal and void and further held that workmen were entitled
to get reinstatement along with consequential backwages. Whileso, as could be seen from
Clause 3 of the Terms of Settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the ID Act on 19.04.2006
extracted supra, it is to be noted that the said award dated 21.02.2006 deciding the pre-
existing rights of the workmen was already withdrawn by the workmen. This being the
factual position, it is not known how the learned counsel for the appellants say that the
application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act before Labour Court is based on the
pre-existing rights. We wish to make it clear that had the award passed in I.D.No.32 of
2003, dated 21.02.2006, been allowed to stay without getting it withdrawn, then he was
right. But, unfortunately, the said award was subsequently withdrawn and thereby there
was no any pre-existing right available to move application under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act.
6. Secondly, learned Single Judge has also framed an issue that whether the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court is legally sustainable and whether the labour
Court can go into the question of validity of settlement under Section 12(3) in a proceeding
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act? Taking support of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Brijpal Singh reported in [(2005) 8 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
58], learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court cannot go into the correctness of
settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the ID Act. Therefore, in our considered view,
the Labour Court has messed up without knowing the basic issue that in an application
filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, the Labour Court cannot go into the question
whether the workman is entitled to any benefit and that the workmen must have a pre-
existing right to the benefits which can be computed in terms of money (A reference can be
had from Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and another [1995 (1) SCC
235]. In the case on hand, as stated above, the award dated 21.02.2006 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal was subsequently withdrawn by the workmen in a settlement reached
under Section 12(3) of the ID Act on 19.04.2006. Therefore, there was no any pre-existing
right available, hence, we are of the considered view that the Labour Court cannot
arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by
the workmen which is not based on a pre-existing right. Hence, the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the workmen herein under Section 33-C(2) of
the I.D. Act in an undetermined claim. Thus, on this score, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In fine, for the reasons stated above, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed by
confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No Costs.
(T.R., J.) (V.S.G., J.)
28.06.2021
rkm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
To
THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rkm
W.A.No.2115 of 2012
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
