Madras High Court
Management vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2022
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Management
of Kangeyam PACB
Kangeyam,
Erode District,
by its President ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
2.N.Palanisamy(Deceased)
3.Santhamani
4.Ezhilarasan
5.Pukalaravinth
(R3 to R5 substituted as Legal Representatives
of Deceased Second respondent vide order
dated 25.04.2022 made in W.M.P.No.6251/2022
in W.P.No.8314/2014) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to
the award dated 03.06.2013 passed by the 1st respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
I.D.No.499/2002, directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with 25%
back wages and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.D.Nasrullah
For Respondents
[For R1] : Labour Court
[For R3 to R5] : No appearance
R2 Died : Steps taken
ORDER
The Award dated 03.06.2013 passed in I.D.No.499 of 2002 is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner is Management of Kangeyam Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Bank, which is a registered society under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The
petitioner states that they are running 9 Fair Price Shops for distribution of
essential commodities to the people at large. For each shop, there is one
sales person. The second respondent / workman was employed as Packer
in the writ petitioner society. The second respondent refused to receive the
demand draft towards the payment of one month notice pay and
retrenchment compensation along with the covering letter, containing
reasons for effecting the retrenchment, when tendered to the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
respondent. Therefore, the Management has effected the retrenchment and
send the same through RPAD on 04.08.2001. The writ petitioner is
disputing the employment of the second respondent / workman as Night
Watchman.
3. In this regard, it is contended that the Labour Court has not
considered these facts and formed an erroneous opinion that the second
respondent / workman was employed as Night Watchman in the petitioner
Co-operative Society. The petitioner states that the second
respondent/workman was not appointed as per Rule 149 of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore, his appointment was
irregular. Thus, the Award impugned is liable to be set aside.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the second
respondent/workman died and his legal heirs were substituted. The Labour
Court adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and
evidences. The findings of the Labour Court reveals that the order of
retrenchment was passed without following the procedures contemplated
under 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the retrenchment order, the
name of the second respondent was stated as Weighman. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
name of the Fair Price Shop has not been stated. In any angle, the order of
retrenchment was not issued in consonance with the principles to be
followed and in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act. Thus, the Labour Court arrived a conclusion that the order of
retrenchment issued against the 2nd respondent / workman was improper.
5. Regarding the second issue, the Labour Court relied on the
judgment in the case of Paramjit Singh and Another Vs. Labour Court,
Patiala and Others reported in 2013 (1) LLJ 497, wherein, the Court held
that the provisions contained in Section 25-F (a) and (b) are mandatory
and termination of service of a workman, which amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of Section 2(oo) without giving one month's notice or
pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation is null and
void/illegal/inoperative. In view of the fact that the writ
petitioner/Management has failed to establish that they have passed the
order of retrenchment by following the procedures as contemplated under
the provisions of the Act and Rules, the Labour Court formed an opinion
and passed the Award for reinstatement with 25% backwages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
6. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect
of the findings of the Labour Court as the petitioner/Co-operative society
has failed to establish that the retrenchment of the second
respondent/workman was made in accordance with law. That apart, the
second respondent/workman died during the pendency of the writ petition
and now, the legal heirs are substituted. Under these circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour
Court. Consequently, the Award dated 03.06.2013 passed in I.D.No.499 of
2002 stands confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.06.2022
kak
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Kak
W.P.No.8314 of 2014
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
