Madras High Court
M/S Manjushree Plantations Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 31 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.62 of 2022
C.M.P.Nos. 568 and 570 of 2022
M/s Manjushree Plantations Ltd.,
Ouchterlony Valley, New Hope Post – 643 226,
Gudalur, The Nilgiris.
Rep. By its Director,
Mr.Mallangada Annaiah Appanna ..Appellant
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore.
2.Lingaraj ..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 10.09.2018 made in W.P.No.44271 of 2016.
For Appellant .. Mr.S.Raveekumar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 10
September 2018 recorded on W.P.No.44271 of 2016. This appeal is
by an unsuccessful writ petitioner - management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that,
the Labour Court so also learned Single Judge fell in error while
recording the impugned award / order without properly appreciating
the legal point that once the resignation tendered by the workman
was accepted, it was not open to him to withdraw the same. It is
submitted that the consequential relief granted by the Labour Court
is perverse and non-interference therein by the writ Court is
erroneous. Learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted
that there was manipulation in the letter which was projected as
withdrawal of resignation and that fact should have been properly
appreciated. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and
having considered the material on record, this Court finds that the
second respondent / workman was in employment of the appellant
Company for more than 25 years, from the year 1980 to 2006.
From the findings recorded by the Labour Court so also by learned
Single Judge, it transpires that the workman had met with an
accident and had fractured his hip and had asked for a light duty
which the management was not willing and under those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances he expressed his frustration, the opportunity which is
seized by the management stating that that request / resignation is
accepted on that very day. It is this arrangement which the Labour
Court did not accept as tendering of resignation and acceptance
thereof. This finding is confirmed by learned single Judge. The say
of the workman that immediately on realising this, he withdrew that
request is considered by the competent authority so also by learned
single Judge of this Court and they recorded that the action of the
management to get rid of the workman was projected to be
acceptance of the resignation.
4. In the facts of the case and on the basis of the material
on record, we do not find any error which can be said to be an error
apparent on the face of record, which may call for any interference
in this intra-court appeal. This appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
5. It was enquired from the learned advocate for the
appellant that, though the impugned order of learned single Judge
is dated 10.09.2018 and by this time more than three years have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed, whether any amount is paid to the workman or not. To this,
the answer is in negative. It is submitted that the appeal was
immediately filed but the same was pending in Registry and the
management is not to be blamed for it.
6. Though, technically the appeal can not be said to be
barred by any limitation or there is any other delay on the part of
the management, record as it stands now indicates that the award
of the Labour Court is dated 17.06.2016 and even the order of
learned Single Judge is dated 10.09.2018 and the workman has
effectively not got any relief, so far. It is under these circumstances,
the balance further tilts against the present appellant.
7. On conjoint consideration of the above, we find that no
interference is required in the impugned order. This appeal therefore
needs to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
8. Since even after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by
the Management, no relief has effectively flown to the workman, by
this order, the workman would remain there only. It is for these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reasons, it is further directed that consequential benefits payable to
the workman shall be paid within a period of two months from
today.
List 'for reporting compliance' on 04.04.2022.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
31.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
mmi/10
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.62 of 2022
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
