Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M.Abdul Latheif on 6 July, 2023
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
And
W.M.P.No.24330 of 2016
The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Ltd.,
Pallavan Illam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.M.Abdul Latheif
2.The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Building,
High Court Compound,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order
passed in I.D.No.100 of 2011 dated 22.02.2016 on the file second
respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vediappan for R1
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed
in I.D.No.100 of 2011 dated 22.02.2016 on the file second respondent
and quash the same.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was
appointed as Driver in the petitioner Corporation during the year 1996.
The first respondent was a habitual absentee and he was terminated
from service on 30.05.2006. Challenging the same, the first
respondent filed application before the Conciliation Officer and since
the conciliation efforts failed, he raised industrial disputes before the
second respondent in I.D.No.100 of 2011. The second respondent
passed award directing the petitioner to notionally reinstate the first
respondent and to pay 30% of backwages and all other attendant
benefits to the first respondent from the date of dismissal till the date
of superannuation and further directed that the petitioner shall also
pay terminal benefits to the first respondent. Challenging the same,
the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
that the first respondent un-authorisedly absented himself from duty
for nearly 170 days during the period from 11.12.2004 to 30.05.2006.
Since he was a habitual absentee he was terminated from service on
30.05.2006 without conducting any enquiry on the ground that the
first respondent was already terminated from service twice and was
punished 9 times for various misconducts.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that though the first respondent was terminated from
service twice prior to this termination order, those termination orders
were set aside by the competent forum. The learned counsel further
submitted that though the petitioner claim that the first respondent
was un-authorisedly absent from duty for nearly 170 days during the
period from 11.12.2004 to 30.05.2006, the termination order was
passed for his un-authorized absence for eight days consecutively from
11.12.2004. Hence, the Labour Court rightly passed the impugned
award which warrants no interference.
5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
6.The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the
first respondent entered the service of the petitioner Corporation as
Driver during the year 1996. The first respondent was terminated
from service on 30.05.2006. Challenging the same, the first
respondent raised industrial disputes before the second respondent in
I.D.No.100 of 2011. The second respondent after considering the
factual aspects passed award dated 22.02.2016 directing the petitioner
to notionally reinstate the first respondent and to pay 30% of
backwages and all other attendant benefits to the first respondent
from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation and further
directed that the petitioner shall also pay terminal benefits to the first
respondent.
7.However, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have in
a catena of judgments held that a person is not entitled for backwages
for the period when he is not in employment and hence, the second
respondent is not entitled for any backwages.
8.In view of the above, this Court modifies the Award of the
second respondent dated 22.02.2016 passed in I.D.No.100 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
as follows:
(i)The petitioner is directed to notionally reinstate the first
respondent with continuity of service.
(ii)The first respondent is entitled to all other attendant benefits
from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation, except
backwages.
(iii)The petitioner is directed to settle all the terminal benefits
and other benefits due to the first respondent within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already
settled.
9.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.07.2023
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
City Civil Court Annexure Building,
High Court Compound,
Chennai – 600 104.
W.P.No.28193 of 2016
And
W.M.P.No.24330 of 2016
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
