Madras High Court
C.Subramaniam (Deceased) vs The Management on 20 June, 2022
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
W.P.(MD)No.17144 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2013
C.Subramaniam (Deceased)
2.S.Lakshmi
3.S.Chockkalingam
4.S.Rathna ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Management,
Sri Nachammai Cotton Mills,
Chettinadu, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
connection with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in
I.D.No.105 of 2009, dated 25.06.2012, quash the same in so far as it relates to the
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
denial of back wages to the petitioner from 12.03.2009 to till the date of
reinstatement and consequently directing the 1st respondent to reinstate the
petitioner and pay all consequential back-wages to the petitioner with effect from
the date of award.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
For R1 : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the impugned order passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.105 of 2009, dated 25.06.2012 and
quash the same insofar as it relates to the denial of back wages to the petitioner
from 12.03.2009, till the date of reinstatement and consequently, direct the first
respondent to reinstate the petitioner and pay all consequential back wages to the
petitioner with effect from the date of award.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner C.Subramanian raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in
I.D.No.105 of 2009 with regard to his non-employment and for other reliefs under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, after full-
fledged enquiry, directed the respondent to reinstate C.Subramanian with
continuity of service and other benefits without back wages. Challenging the
denial of back wages, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no
evidence produced by the respondent/Management to show that the deceased
C.Subramanian was gainfully employed during the period of his non-employment
and that being the case, the denial of back wages is against law.
4. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of Deepali
Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalay reported in (2013)
10 SCC 342, "for the proposition that an employee or workman whose services
are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either
plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the court of
first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser
wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to
plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing
prior to the termination of service."
5. He would submit that the deceased Subramanian has taken a specific
plea that during the time of his non-employment, he was not gainfully employed
and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have awarded a relief with back wages.
6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management
submitted that the deceased C.Subramanian was running the catering service and
he has admitted in the cross-examination about running of catering shop,
especially, the Coffee shop. This admission is clear evidence of his gainful
employment during the period of his non-employment. It is his further submission
that the deceased C.Subramanian was not denied the employment. He absented
himself voluntarily and in spite of sending several letters and opportunity for him
to join duty, he has not availed the opportunity. Even after the disposal of the
Industrial Dispute, he was provided with job in Winding Department. He worked
for only one day and then filed a petition and therefore, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and this writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that C.Subramanian was working in Winding
Department. After the disposal of I.D.O.P.No.105 of 2009 and filing of this writ
petition, he died on 30.09.2020. Therefore, his legal representatives are impleaded
as petitioners 2 to 4. Admittedly, the respondent/Management has not challenged
the order of reinstatement of deceased Subramanian with continuity of service
and other attendant benefits. The deceased/petitioner alone has filed this petition
challenging the order of Labour Court denying the back wages and that is
prosecuted by his legal representatives.
9. A perusal of the award of the learned Labour Court shows that the
deceased person was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On
the side of the Management Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 were marked. Reference to the list
of documents filed by both the parties has not shown any materials to show that
the deceased Subramanian was employed during the period of non-employment.
If he was so employed, what was his income. The learned counsel for the
respondent/Management brought to the knowledge of this Court the evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
deceased Subramanian to show that he was running a coffee shop. There is also
an admission that his father was running coffee shop and now, his younger sister
is running the shop. The evidence of deceased Subramanian shows that he was
running a coffee shop, however, there is no evidence to show that what was the
income earned by him by running the coffee shop. The learned Labour Court has
not discussed anything about the employment of the deceased Subramanian and
whether the income derived from the coffee shop could be construed outcome of
gainful employment. The back wages was denied mainly by taking into account
the statement of the Management that the deceased Subramanian was gainfully
working when he was not working under the respondent/Management.
10. This Court finds that the findings with regard to rejection of back wages
is not a reasoned order and therefore, it has to be necessarily set aside.
Accordingly, the findings of the Labour Court with regard to the rejection of back
wages to the deceased Subramanian is set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the Labour Court, Madurai, for conducting fresh enquiry with regard to back
wages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
11. Thus, this Court confirms the order with regard to reinstatement of the
deceased Subramanian with continuity of service and other benefits and set aside
the order with regard to denial of backwages. The matter is remitted back to the
Labour Court, Madurai for disposal for deciding as the entitlement to seek wages
to the deceased Subramanian. The Labour Court, Madurai, is directed to dispose
of the case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Pendency of this writ petition is in no way a bar to the respondents
from releasing the gratuity amount to the legal heirs of the deceased
Subramanian.
12. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
To
1.The Management,
Sri Nachammai Cotton Mills,
Chettinadu, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.17144 of 2013
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
am
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.17144 of 2013
Dated:
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
