Madras High Court
T.Deivanai Achi vs The Presiding Officer on 7 September, 2021
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.2220 of 2018
M.Thyagarajan (deceased)
1.T.Deivanai Achi, W/o.late M.Thiagarajan
2.Umayal, D/o.late M.Thiagarajan
3.T.Palaniappan, S/o.late M.Thiagarajan
... Appellants/Petitioners 2 to 4
versus
1.The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
High Court Compound,
Chennai - 600 104.
2.M.S.Jain,
M/s.Kiran Road Lines,
81, New Avadi Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.12547 of 2005,
dated 03.03.2017 and allow the above Writ Appeal.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
For Appellant :Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents :Labour Court for R1
No Appearance for R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA,J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of
the impugned order dated 03.03.2017, passed in W.P.No.12547 of 2005 by
a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Learned Single Judge refused to accept the arguments of
Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the
petitioner/appellant should be held as a workman as defined under Section
2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereat confirming the award
passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.1177 of 1991, dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant, questioned the correctness of the reasoning given by the learned
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
Single Judge while confirming the award passed by the Labour Court in
I.D.No.1177 of 1991 dated 21.02.2005. The husband of the first appellant
viz., M.Thyagarajan was working under the second respondent, namely,
M.S.Kiran Road Lines as Maintenance Mechanic from 10.12.1989 on a
salary of Rs.2,000/- per month, apart from daily batta of Rs.20/-. This
apart, the 2nd respondent used to pay yearly bonus during Deepavali and
Pongal. While so, the 2nd respondent, by an order dated 20.09.1991,
terminated the petitioner's service on the ground that he was a surplus staff,
therefore, he raised an industrial Dispute in I.D.No.1177 of 1991, under
Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to reinstate him with
continuity of Service, back wages and all other attendants benefits.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent refuting the
allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and it was
averred therein that the petitioner/appellant was not a workman as he was
working as foreman and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month and
the main and substantial duty of the petitioner/appellant was supervisory in
character. Since the petitioner/appellant is employed in supervisory capacity
drawing wages exceeding Rs.16,000/-, hence, he was not a workman within
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act and that it was only
the petitioner/appellant, who left the work spot with relevant documents and
keys of the almirah. Therefore, when the petitioner/appellant sent a notice
dated 23.09.1991 through his advocate asking the 2nd respondent to cancel
the termination order and to take him back into service, the 2nd respondent
sent a letter dated 26.09.1991 to the petitioner's advocate asking him to
advice the petitioner to report for duty along with all important documents
and keys of almirah taken by him. Even after receipt of the said letter, the
petitioner/appellant did not report for duty. It is denied that the management
did not allow the petitioner/appellant to join duty. Instead of repeated
directions from the management, the petitioner deliberately failed to report
for duty. Therefore, the question of retrenchment, framing charges and
conducting enquiry against him do not arise at all since the
petitioner/appellant was not dismissed from service, but the
petitioner/appellant voluntarily abandoned the service.
5. The counter affidavit filed before the lower Court also
indicated that the appellant's husband was ready to report for duty without
prejudice to his claim for back wages from September 1991. Based on the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
same, the Labour Court took up the matter and finally, held against the
appellant's husband that he was not a workman. Aggrieved by that, the
said award was put to challenge in W.P.No.12547 of 2005.
6. Learned Single Judge, after considering the issues raised,
confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ
Petition as against which, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
8. We are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.1177 of 1991, dated 20.10.2000,
which was confirmed by the impugned order for the following reasons:
The appellant's husband entered the service of the
respondent on 10.12.1989 for monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-
with daily batta of Rs.20/-.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
9. On the side of the respondent, Mr.S.C.Gupta, Manager of
the respondent was examined as M.W.1 and deposed that the husband of
the appellant was working as Supervisor and he was doing the duty of
supervising the drivers and allotting work to them and he was not working
as a maintenance mechanic. Apart from the above witness, Wilson, a driver,
was examined as M.W.2 and in support of the respondent's case, he deposed
that the petitioner/appellant was working as Transport Manager and in the
respondent's organisation 20 drivers and cleaners were working for the
respondent Road lines; Narayanasamy, who was also examined as M.W.3
deposed in support of the above evidence that the petitioner/appellant was
working in Kiran Road lines as Transport Manager. Apart from the above
oral evidence, on the side of the 2nd respondent, eight documents were
marked as Exs.M2 to M9. Among the eight documents, Ex.M9 series are
very important documents which prove that the petitioner/appellant had only
disbursed salaries to the drivers and cleaners for the months of May, June,
July and August, 1991 and obtained their acknowledgments for the receipt
of the salary amount and in proof of the same at the bottom, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
petitioner/appellant had put his signature with date. The above documents
Ex.M.9 series, Ex.M8 series cash vouchers also proved the meals, batta and
conveyance charges given to the drivers and cleaners. These documents
would also prove that the amounts were paid not directly to the drivers and
cleaners from the cashier and it was routed through the petitioner/appellant.
Since these documents have strengthened the findings of the labour Court
that he was supervising the work of the drivers and cleaners and disbursing
any due amount to them inclusive of salary, we are unable to differ from the
same.
10. Finally when there was no supporting evidence produced
by the petitioner/appellant to prove that the he was working as a
Maintenance Mechanic, the Labour Court has rightly held that it is difficult
to bring him under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
workman.
11. This Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India only when there is any patent illegality in finding of
the facts of the case by the Labour Court. However, in the case on hand, we
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
find that the Labour Court has rendered a well-reasoned finding, which was
confirmed by the impugned order. Hence, we do not find any reason
warranting interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and there is no
order as to costs.
[T.R.,J] [T.V.T.S.,J]
07.09.2021
ub
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
To
The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
High Court Compound,
Chennai - 600 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2220 of 2018
T.RAJA,J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
W.A.No.2220 of 2018
07.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
