Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 7 October, 2021
W.A.No.3429/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.3429 of 2019 and CMP.No.22025/2019
The Management,
State Transport Corporation Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Chennai.
2. P.K.Latha ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the Order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.29492
of 2007 dated 22.07.2011.
For Appellant : No appearance
For 2nd respondent : Mr.L.G.Sahadevan
for Mr.L.Rajasekar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.No.3429/2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the correctness of
the impugned order passed passed in W.P.No.29492 of 2007 dated
22.07.2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in which a finding
has been rendered that the 2nd respondent workman is eligible for
reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits,
but without back wages since the grant of back wages is not supported
the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. Therefore, the learned Single Judge,
modifying the award passed in I.D.No.681/2001 dated 22.09.2006 by
the Labour Court, Chennai, made it clear that the workman is eligible
for reinstatement with continuity of service with other attendant
benefits, but without back wages.
2. When the matter was called today, there was no
representation on behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation.
Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent workman was present.
3. The case of the 2nd respondent-workman is that she was
appointed as Counter Staff on 15.01.1996 in the appellant Transport
Corporation and she was working in the KSTRC Bus Depot, Ernakulam,
Kerala, on payment of a monthly wage of Rs.600/-. Although she has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3429/2019
put in uninterrupted service in the appellant Corporation from
15.01.1996 to 30.09.1996 for a period of 255 days, the appellant
Corporation did not regularise her appointment. When she was
terminated on 30.09.1996 without any notice, after approaching the
Labour Officer for conciliation, she has raised an Industrial Dispute
before the learned I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in
I.D.No.681/2001. The Labour Court has given a finding dated
22.09.2006 holding that the termination was made without issuing
notice or making any demand in lieu of such notice as provided under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Labour
Court has held that the workman/2nd respondent herein was entitled
for reinstatement of service with back wages and continuity of service
with all other attendant benefits. Against which, when the appellant
Transport Corporation has filed the writ petition, the learned Single
Judge, while disallowing the grant of back wages alone, dismissed the
writ petition confirming the award passed by the 1st respondent herein-
Labour Court, Chennai in all other respects.
4. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent also stated that
when similar awards were passed by the Labour Courts, the State
Transport Corporation has chosen to file writ appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3429/2019
5. At the outset, the facts that the 2nd respondent has put in
an uninterrupted service in the appellant Transport Corporation from
15.01.1996 to 30.09.1996 for a period of 255 days and since the
appellant Corporation did not regularise her appointment, but
terminated her services without any notice on 30.09.1996 and in the
industrial dispute raised by her, the 1st respondent accepting her case
has passed an award of reinstatement with continuity of service with
back wages and other attendant benefits are not in dispute. Aggrieved
by the same, when the appellant Transport Corporation, filed the writ
petition before this Court, the same was dismissed by disallowing the
the grant of back wages stating that the same is against the principle
of 'No work No pay', are also not in dispute. Against which, though the
appellant Transport Corporation has filed this Writ Appeal before this
Court during the year 2019, on a perusal of the notes paper, it appears
that at the instance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it has
been adjourned from time to time and even today, at the time of
hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the learned Counsel
for the appellant Transport Corporation. Further, a perusal of the
order of the learned Single Judge reveals that while confirming the
order of the 1st respondent Labour Court to reinstate the 2 nd
respondent with continuity of service and other attendant benefits
since she has worked continuously from 15.01.1996 to 30.09.1996 for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3429/2019
a period of 255 days, disallowed the grant of back wages alone on the
principle of 'No work No Pay' in which we do not find any infirmity or
illegality to interfere with the same.
6. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed thereby confirming the order of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.29492 of 2007 dated 22.07.2011 . No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
(T.R.J.,) (T.V.T.S.J.,)
07.10.2021
tsi
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3429/2019
T.RAJA, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
tsi
W.A.No.3429/2019
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3429/2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
