Madras High Court
The Director vs I.Jayaraj .. First on 9 March, 2022
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.03.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, Chief Justice
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
---
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.2626 and 853 of 2022
---
1. The Director,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Chennai-600 036.
2. The Chairman,
The Council of Wardens and
Hostel Management,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Chennai-600 036. .. Appellants in W.A.No.332 of 2022 and
respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.102 of 2022
Vs.
1. I.Jayaraj .. First respondent in W.A.No.332 of 2022 and
and appellant in W.A.No.102 of 2022
2. The Presiding Officer,
First Additional Labour Court,
Chennai. .. Second respondent in W.A.No.332 of 2022 and
first respondent in W.A.No.102 of 2022
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 03.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9263 of 2014
on the file of this Court.
Page No.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
For appellant in W.A.No.332 of 2022
and for respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.102 of 2022 : Mr.R.Parthiban
For first respondent in W.A.No.332 of 2022
and for appellant in W.A.No.102 of 2022: Mr.G.Purushothaman
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Counter appeals have been preferred against the order dated 03.03.2021
in W.P.No.9263 of 2014, in which, the learned Single Judge addressed the
challenge to the Award passed by the Labour Court directing for order of
punishment of dismissal from service, to be substituted by compulsory
retirement without award of back-wages to the writ petitioner-workman. The
challenge to the order aforesaid has been made in these appeals, by the
Management as well as the workman. However, realising that the workman is
now an Advocate practising since 2012, this Court persuaded the parties to
amicably settle the dispute to end the issue, so that they may buy peace. It is in
view of the fact that the matter otherwise travelled to High Court on two
different occasions, out of which, one resulted in the order in question.
However, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case.
2. The workman had challenged the order of dismissal from service before
Page No.2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
the Labour Court. The Labour Court, taking preliminary issue, held enquiry to be
fair. It then proceeded to hear the parties to pass final Award. In the final
Award, enquiry was held to be unfair ignoring the earlier order where enquiry
was held to be fair. The Award was then challenged by the Management
successfully for the reason that the Labour Court had passed the Award in
contradiction to the earlier order holding enquiry to be fair. The High Court set
aside the Award with remand of the case to the Labour Court to consider the
proof of the charges after the evidence by the parties. The Labour Court, on
remand, found the charges to be proved and looking into the gravity of the
charges, the punishment of dismissal was not interfered with.
3. Challenge to the Award was made by the workman alleging that the
enquiry was not fair. Accepting the argument aforesaid, the impugned order was
passed by the learned Single Judge. The enquiry was held to be unfair mainly
on the ground that, after the charge-sheet containing the eight allegations, five
more charges were taken during the course of enquiry without a charge sheet.
The learned Single Judge thus held the enquiry to be unfair. As a consequence
thereupon, the matter should have been remanded back to the Labour Court on
the second occasion to allow the parties to lead the evidence to prove the
charges. But looking into the fact that the workman has already attained the age
of superannuation and being a practising Lawyer, the order of dismissal was
Page No.3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
converted into one of compulsory retirement, which has been challenged by
both parties in these appeals.
4. The parties were persuaded by this Court for an amicable settlement
looking into the fact that the workman is now a practising Lawyer from the year
2012. Therefore, no purpose would be served in contesting the matter further.
Learned counsel for the Management had initially shown difficulty to accept the
matter for settlement, but on instructions, the parties have agreed to settle the
matter on the following terms:
(i) The order of dismissal be treated to be one of compulsory retirement
with effect from January 2012, being the month when the workman entered into
the profession of Advocate.
(ii) The workman would be entitled to pension as a consequence thereof,
but he has to forego the claim of pension for the intervening period till the
month of December 2019, and thereby, he would be entitled to pension only
with effect from 01.01.2020.
(iii) The workman would not be entitled to any other benefit, except
payment of Gratuity only for the period of actual service. The pensionary benefit
would however be taken for the entire period till the date of compulsory
retirement.
(iv) The workman would not be entitled to any other benefit which
Page No.4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
includes reinstatement or any other benefit than the one directed above.
5. The benefit arising out of the aforesaid directions, shall be extended to
the workman within a period of four months after proper fixation of his
entitlement.
6. Both the Writ Appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
directions, and thereby the order under challenge is substituted by the terms of
settlement given above. No costs. Consequently, C.M.Ps. are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C.J)
09.03.2022
Speaking Order: Yes/no
cs
To
The Presiding Officer,
First Addl. Labour Court,
Chennai.
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Page No.5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
cs
W.A.Nos.332 and 102 of 2022
09.03.2022
Page No.6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
