Madras High Court
The Management vs M. Venkatachalam on 30 January, 2023
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Ltd.,
Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore – 641 043. ..Appellant
Vs.
M. Venkatachalam ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 01.10.2020 passed in
W.P. No. 849 of 2019.
For Appellant :: Mr.A. Sundaravadhanan
For Respondent :: Mr.V. Ajoy Khose
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
1\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
AND
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
Challenging the unsuccessful order dated 01.10.2020 in W.P. No. 849
of 2019 confirming the order of the Labour Court dated 12.03.2018 passed
in C.P. No. 164 of 2014, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. The employee concerned/respondent herein, who was
sponsored by the Employment Exchange, had joined the service of the
appellant Transport Corporation as Driver on 20.12.2007. In terms of
settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (' the Act '
for short)entered into between the appellant Transport Corporation and
Trade Unions of its workers, a workman is entitled to regularisation of
service on completion of 240 days of service. Though the respondent herein
ought to have been extended the benefit of regularisation with effect from
01.02.2009, the same was not done as the respondent/employee was facing a
criminal case in C.C. No. 77 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate Court
No.8, Coimbatore. Subsequently, on acquittal of the respondent in the
criminal case by order dated 26.09.2012, his services were regulairsed, but
2\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
the monetary benefits were extended to him with effect from 28.12.2012
only. Hence, the respondent made a representation on 20.06.2013 marked
as Ex.W3 to the appellant Transport Corporation seeking monetary benefits
due to him with effect from the date of his regularisation, namely,
01.02.2009 in terms of the settlement mentioned supra. The request of the
respondent was rejected vide Ex.W4 dated 06.07.2013 and the
respondent/employee had approached the Labour Court by means of a
computation petition stating that in the light of the settlement under Section
12(3) of the Act, as the respondent/employee had completed 240 days of
service in terms of the settlement, the difference of wages and other benefits
from the date of regularisation i.e. 01.02.2009 have to be paid. Though the
appellant Transport Corporation contested the petition on two grounds
namely, that the petition is belated and that the benefits would be payable
only from the date of order of regularisation i.e, from 28.12.2012, the
Labour Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent/employee and
directed the appellant Transport Corporation to pay the amount claimed in
the petition along with interest @ 6% per annum from 20.06.2013. The
operative portion of the order passed by the Labour Court is extracted
3\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
hereunder:
"9. In the result, this Petition is allowed as follows:-
1. That the Respondent is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.3,52,537/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty two thousand Five
hundred thirty seven only) to the Petitioner along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.06.2013;
2. That the Respondent is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1000/- to the Petitioner as cost of this litigation; and
3. That the Petitioner is not entitled to any other relief."
3. The writ petition filed by the Transport Corporation assailing
the order passed by the Labour Court was also dismissed by the learned
Single Judge, which has necessitated the filing of this writ appeal.
4. The order of the Labour Court, as confirmed by the learned
Single Judge, is assailed primarily on the premise that as the
respondent/employee, who was facing a criminal case, was acquitted only in
the year 2012, he would be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date
of order of regularisation i.e, 28.12.2012 and not from 01.02.2009, the date
with effect from which his services were regularised, as contended by him.
4\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
That apart, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the computation
petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act without adjudicating the liability.
Finally, it is the submission on behalf of the appellant that when there is a
rejection order Ex.W4 passed by the appellant Corporation, without
questioning the same, the respondent/employee ought not to have
approached the Labour Court seeking determination of the amount.
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent/employee joined the
service of the appellant Transport Corporation in the year 2007; had worked
for more than 240 days; was acquitted in the criminal case in C.C. No. 77 of
2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore and that an order
was passed by the appellant Transport Corporation dated 28.12.2012
granting regularisation to the respondent/employee with effect from
01.02.2009. The contention that there should be adjudication before
determining the computation petition cannot be accepted in the case on hand
as the employee seeks benefits under the settlement. Even going by the
5\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
communication dated 28.12.2012, the employer had agreed to pay arrears.
When the benefits accrue based on settlement, which has been accepted by
the Management, the monetary benefits will have to be paid to the employee
from the date of regularisation, i.e. with effect from 01.02.2009. The
appellant employer has issued an order dated 28.12.2012 regularising the
services of the respondent workman with effect from 01.02.2009 and
therefore, the payment of monetary benefits, which the employee is
otherwise entitled to, with effect from 01.01.2013 may not be correct,.
Hence, there is no need for an industrial dispute to be raised, adjudicated
and thereafter, the amount to be determined when the facts are not in
dispute. The learned Single Judge, by referring to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Central Bank of India V. P.S.
Rajagopalan reported in (AIR 1964 SC 743) and Municipal Corporation
of Delhi V. Ganesh Razak reported in [(1995) 1 SCC 235)] has rightly held
that whenever a workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit
which is capable of being computed in terms of money from his employer
and is denied of such benefit, can approach the Labour Court by filing a
petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act and there is no need for prior
6\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
adjudication when the benefits flow from a settlement. Hence, we are of the
view that the employee is entitled to the benefit, as claimed, with effect from
01.02.2009 and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge.
7. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
8. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that a
portion of the amount has already been deposited before the Labour Court.
9. Therefore, the amount lying in deposit along with accrued
interest before the Labour Court shall be disbursed to the
respondent/employee by the Labour Court within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The balance amount, if any,
payable, shall be paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
(S.V.N.J.) (J.S.N.P.J.)
nv 30.01.2023
7\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
nv
W.A.No. 2155 of 2021
8\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2155 of 2021
30.01.2023
9\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
