Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Sengamalai on 22 September, 2022
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.19972 of 2018
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Salem)
Limited,
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem-636 007.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Salem)
Limited,
Salem-636 007.
3.The Company Secretary,
TNSTC (Salem) Limited,
Salem-7. .. Appellants
Vs
P.Sengamalai .. Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 08.03.2018 made in W.P.No.20271 of 2012.
For Appellants .. Mr.R.Balu
For Respondent .. Mr.P.M.Subramaniam for
Ms.S.Girija
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
08.03.2018 recorded on W.P.No.20271 of 2012. This appeal is by
the respondent / Management.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that,
the demand made by the appellant – Management (towards interest)
was strictly in accordance with the provisions holding the field and
therefore interference therein by the learned single Judge is
erroneous and therefore this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent -
workman has submitted that, the workman was out of employment
for the reasons not attributable to him and after considering the
totality learned single Judge has granted relief which may not be
interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this Court
finds that in para : 9 of order under challenge, learned Single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
has recorded reason, which according to us, is just and proper. It
reads as as under:-
“9. This Court is unable to see as to how
the Corporation is justified in claiming
the interest on its contribution from the
employee, particularly in the teeth of the
fact that the employee himself has given an
undertaking foregoing the back-wages
apparently running to lakhs of rupees before
this Court in the earlier proceedings.
Such being the case, it is unconscionable
for the State Corporation to claim interest
from its employee towards its contribution
which was of course settled at the time of
discharge. At best, the employee is only
liable to pay actual contribution that was
settled in his favour viz., the sum of
Rs.35,146/- and not any accrued interest on
the said amount. Therefore, the claim of
the Corporation for Rs.1,53,572/- cannot be
sustained both in law and on facts.”
5. We find that, not only the demand of the employer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
Rs.1,53,572/- was illegal, the arbitrariness on the part of the
appellant- employer assumes further significance considering the fact
that, though the writ petitioner has retired way back in the year 2011
and now more than a decade has passed, only because of this
controversy, he is not paid anything towards his retirement dues. In
this background we find that, not only the order of learned single
Judge does not call for any interference, further direction also needs
to be given, as to why the same yardstick be not applied against the
appellant Corporation to pay interest to the workman, who is
deprived of his legitimate dues for a decade.
6. We also note that, the backwages are not paid to the
workman on the basis of his concession. This issue is already
considered by this Court in W.A.No.2302 of 2021 (order dated
03.02.2022), more particularly paragraph 8 thereof. We note that ,
learned Advocate for the appellant had attempted to rely on the
regulations for Tamil Nadu State Transport Management Pension Fund
Trust. We also find that, it is that very set of rules, which was under
consideration before the Bench in the matter referred above.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
7.1 This appeal is dismissed.
7.2 The appellant - Corporation is directed to pay the terminal
dues to the workman (writ petitioner) as directed by learned single
Judge, not later than 17.10.2022.
7.3 The question of compensating the workman appropriately,
shall be considered, once the terminal dues are paid to the workman.
7.4 Connected civil miscellaneous petition would not survive.
8. List on 19.10.2022 'for reporting compliance'.
(P.U.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
22.09.2022
Index:No
raa/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
raa
W.A.No.2476 of 2018
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
