The Assistant Engineer (Pwd) vs S.Albert
2021 Latest Caselaw 12697 Mad

                                                        W.A.No.608 of 2020
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                           DATED : 29.06.2021

                                  CORAM

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

                          W.A.No.608 of 2020
                       and C.M.P.No.8427 of 2020


The Assistant Engineer (PWD)
Ground Water Section,
Panangattucerry,
Pin Code - 603 102,
                               Chennai - MGR District        .. Appellant

                                   Vs

1.S.Albert

2.The Presiding Officer,
 Principal Labour Court,
                                          Chennai.        .. Respondents


      Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 26.07.2019 made in W.P.No.3277 of 2020.


      For Appellant           :     Mr.D.Ravichander
                                    Additional Government Pleader

      For Respondents         :     No appearance for R1
                                    R2 - Court



                              JUDGMENT

W.A.No.608 of 2020 (Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned

Single Judge, who while declining to interfere with the award passed

on merit, enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.30,000/- to

Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. The first respondent is the daily wage employee working as

Pump Operator. He sought for reinstatement with backwages and

continuity of service. The Labour Court after considering the entire

materials available before it was pleased to hold that the first

respondent was indeed working as Pump Operator and, therefore, the

retrenchment was not proper. On that basis, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was

awarded which was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- by the learned Single

Judge.

3. The only contention sought to be raised by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant is that the first respondent being

the daily rated employee cannot invoke the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act by filing a claim petition.

W.A.No.608 of 2020

4. The aforesaid contention cannot be countenanced, in our

considered view. Such a narrow interpretation can never be given to a

welfare legislation. The Labour Court has gone into factual adjudication

and considered the evidence available before it both oral and

documentary. In fact, number of documents have been marked on

behalf of both sides. The learned Single Judge felt that the amount of

compensation is inadequate and accordingly enhanced it. Such an

exercise of power cannot be termed as irrational.

5. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the

writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                         (M.M.S., J.)    (R.N.M., J.)
                                                 29.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm


To

The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai.



                  W.A.No.608 of 2020



               M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
                           and
                 R.N.MANJULA,J.

                               mmi




              W.A.No.608 of 2020




                      29.06.2021