Madras High Court
D.Jothimani vs The Management on 7 October, 2021
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343, 24245,
23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509, 22149,
21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
and W.M.P.Nos.24012, 22992 & 23762
in W.P.Nos.24245, 23273 & 23917 of 2019
D.Jothimani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.32609/2019
N.Vijayakumari ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25255/2019
R.Veeramuthu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25687/2019
V.Nagammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25265/2019
G.Gunavathy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25343/2019
Parimala Devi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25447/2019
A.Arukkani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25509/2019
R.Selvi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.24245/2019
P.Nagammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23273/2019
G.Parvathi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23608/2019
T.Kanniammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23917/2019
T.Selvi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.22149/2019
Thulasiammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.21333/2019
S.Ramachandran ... Petitioner in W.P.No.32178/2019
E.Padmavathy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.32575/2019
Vs.
The Management,
G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital,
P.B.No.6327, Papanayakkan Palayam,
Coimbatore – 641 037. ... Respondent in all 15 W.Ps
Page 1 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.D.Nos.143, 171, 168, 151, 126,
137, 154, 153, 149, 120, 150, 156, 145, 179 and 162 of 2007 dated
21.02.2018 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Sasikala
(in all 15 W.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.S.Raveendran, Senior Counsel
(in all 15 W.Ps) for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue arises out of a common Award, this common order is
passed in these Writ Petitions.
2.All the petitioners herein are part of the workmen who had opted
for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the respondent-
Hospital, pursuant to a settlement under Section 18(1) Settlement that was
arrived. All these petitioners had received compensation as full and final
settlement for all their dues in lieu of this Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
The Labour Court had analyzed the evidences, both oral and documentary
and had come to the conclusion that these petitioners had voluntarily
tendered their resignation under the Scheme and have also received the
compensation and therefore, are not entitled to raise the dispute.
Page 2 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners herein were coerced to sign the 18(1) Settlement and to receive
the full and final dues.
4.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would
submit that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 430 employees had
opted for the same. Out of which, only 63 of them had raised disputes
before the Labour Court and even among that 63, only 24 have filed Writ
Petitions before this Court. The learned senior counsel would submit that
since the Labour Court has rendered factual findings based on the evidences
available on record, this Court should not interfere with the Award.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Man Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India
Limited and another reported in (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 662, had
dealt with a similar situation, where an industrial dispute was raised by a
worker after having received the compensation under a Voluntary
Retirement Scheme. While rejecting the claim made by the workman, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Ramesh
Page 3 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58 :
(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 706. The relevant portion of the judgment in Man
Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and another reported in (2011) 14
Supreme Court Cases 662, reads as follows:
“...
7.The workmen challenged the order of the Division
Bench before this Court inter alia on the ground that having
held that the management's appeals were not maintainable,
the Division Bench had no jurisdiction to make the impugned
direction. This Court repelled the workmen's contention and in
paras 100 and 101 of the decision held and observed as
follows:- (Ramesh Chandra Sankla Case, (2008) 14 SCC 58 :
(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 706)
"100. Even otherwise, according to the workmen,
they were compelled to accept the amount and they
received such amount under coercion and duress. In our
considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they
want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with
the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be
termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it
is held that a 'technical' contention raised by the workmen
has some force, this Court which again exercises
discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136
Page 4 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
of the Constitution, will not interfere with a direction
which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity. It has
been rightly said that a person 'who seeks equity must do
equity'. Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of
the Company, but they do not want to part with the
benefit they have received towards retirement and
severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply
cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final
direction issued by the Division Bench needs no
interference, particularly when the Company has also
approached this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
101. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
deserves to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. The
payment which is required to be made as per the said
order should be made by the applicants intending to
prosecute their claims before the Labour Court, Mandsour.
In view of the fact, however, that the said period is by now
over, ends of justice would be served if we extend the
time so as to enable the applicants to refund the amount.
We, therefore, extend the time up to 31-12-2008 to make
such payment. We may, however, clarify that the claim
petitions will not be proceeded with till such payment is
made. If the payment is not made within the period
stipulated above, the claim petitions of those applicants
Page 5 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
will automatically stand dismissed. The Labour Court will
take up the claim petitions after 31-12-2008."
8.The present case is squarely covered by the decision
of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla [(2008) 14 SCC 58 :
(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 706]. We, thus, find no merit in the
submission made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court
had no jurisdiction to make a direction for refund of the entire
amount received by the appellant as a condition precedent for
the reference to proceed.”
6.Likewise, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
V.Ramalingam Vs. Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai
and another and R.Sekar Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court,
Chennai reported in 2007 (1) L.L.N. 265, had held that when the Labour
Court comes to a conclusion based on the evidences that there was no
coercion on the part of the employers and that the employees had
voluntarily opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the High Court
would not ordinarily interfere with such factual findings.
7.The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision are precisely the
ground raised by the petitioners, which has been negatived. If the
petitioners were of the view that the Management had coerced them to
Page 6 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
receive the compensation, they ought to have refunded the compensation
before raising a dispute, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Man Singh's
case (supra). Likewise, when the Labour Court had found that there was no
coercion on the part of the Management in permitting the petitioners
herein to go on voluntary retirement, I do not find any reason to interfere
into such findings, which is the ratio laid down in V.Ramalingam (supra) and
R.Sekar (supra).
8.In the result, there are no merits in these Writ Petitions.
Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No 07.10.2021
Internet : Yes
va
To
The Management,
G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital,
P.B.No.6327,
Papanayakkan Palayam,
Coimbatore – 641 037.
Page 7 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343,
24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509,
22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
(15 cases)
M.S.RAMESH, J.
va
W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343, 24245,
23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509, 22149,
21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019
and W.M.P.Nos.24012, 22992 & 23762
in W.P.Nos.24245, 23273 & 23917 of 2019
07.10.2021
Page 8 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
