Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs 2 N. Veerasamy (Died) on 14 July, 2023
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.3582 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.22999 of 2019
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram Division – I) Ltd.
3/137 Salamedu
Villupuram 605 602 Appellant
v
1 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Cuddalore
2 N. Veerasamy (died)
3 Angammal
4 Balaji Respondents
(RR 3 & 4 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased R2 vide Court order dated
11.04.2023 made in C.M.P. No.6540 of 2023
in W.A.No.3582 of 2019)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging
the order dated 08.02.2012 passed in W.P. 13426 of 2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
For appellant Mr. M.Aswin
R1 Labour Court
For RR 3 & 4 Mr. K. Arunagiri
JUDGMENT
(delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 08.02.2012
passed by a Single Bench in W.P. No.13426 of 2002.
2 To avoid prolixity, the parties will be adverted to by their rank
in this writ appeal.
3 The minimum germane facts required for deciding this case are
as under:
3.1 The second respondent workman joined as Conductor in the
appellant Transport Corporation on 10.10.1986. He was suspended from
service on the ground that he had scolded one Assistant Cook by name
Thangavel in choicest epithets and also assaulted him on 18.06.1993
around 3.00 p.m. He was served with a charge memo on 25.06.1993 and a
domestic enquiry was conducted on 07.07.1993. On the basis of the
enquiry report, he was dismissed from service. On the failure of
conciliation proceedings, the second respondent raised an industrial
dispute before the first respondent in I.D. No.191 of 1994.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
3.2 The first respondent, after analysing the evidence on record
and finding that there was contradiction in the statement of witnesses and
that the person who was scolded and assaulted, viz., Thangavel, had not
given any police complaint and had not submitted any medical proof for
having undertaken treatment after being subjected to assault, held that
the charges were not proved and as a sequel, the second respondent is
entitled to reinstatement of service with full backwages, vide award dated
24.07.2001.
3.3 Thereagainst, the appellant filed a writ petition being
W.P.No.13426 of 2022 before a Single Bench, which, by order dated
08.02.2012, confirmed the first respondent’s award qua reinstatement,
besides ordering continuity of service. However, as for backwages, the
Single Bench, considering the admitted past delinquency of the second
respondent and also the punishment suffered by him therefor and on the
ground that the said aspect was not considered by the first respondent
and citing the trite law that grant of full backwages is not automatic upon
reinstatement, reduced backwages to 50%.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
3.4 Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Single Bench, the
Transport Corporation has filed this writ appeal.
4 At the outset, it is to be pointed out that after the order passed
in the writ petition, the second respondent could not be reinstated in
service owing to his attaining the age of superannuation in 2016 and
further, he breathed his last on 14.01.2016, i.e., even before the filing of
this writ appeal.
5 Mr. Aswin, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the Single Bench ordered continuity of service too,
notwithstanding the same not having been awarded by the first
respondent and further, full backwages from the date of the award till the
date of superannuation need not be ordered, as the second respondent
did not work at all.
6 The aforesaid contention of Mr. Ahwin qua continuity of
service does not cut ice with us. At this juncture, it is apropos to refer to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v
Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1 wherein, it has been held in unequivocal terms
(2021) 14 SCC 781
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
that if reinstatement into service is awarded by the Labour Court,
continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The relevant
paragraph from the said judgment is usefully extracted below:
“6. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the
appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award
of the Labour Court dated 27-2-2008 does not specifically deny continuity
of service. Hence, the observation of the High Court to the effect that the
Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would
accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed hereinabove.
The appellant would be entitled to continuity of service.”
(emphasis supplied)
7 Superadded, reinstatement is completely different from
appointment or providing employment as a fresher. Thus, even without
there being any observation qua grant of continuity of service by the Single
Bench, the second respondent is entitled to the same, based on the award
of reinstatement passed by the first respondent.
8 Coming to the issue of grant of full backwages from the date of
the order of the Single Bench till the date of the second respondent’s
superannuation, not providing employment to the second respondent
even after the order passed by the Single Bench is due to the remissness
on the part of the appellant. Such being the fact, it is not fair to deprive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
the second respondent of 50% backwages from the date of the order of
the Single Bench till the date of his superannuation.
9 However, across the bar, the learned counsel for the second
respondent submitted that the second respondent’s legal heirs are willing
to give up 25% of the backwages from the date of the order of the Single
Bench till the date of the superannuation of the second respondent and he
also filed an affidavit dated 14.07.2023 of the second respondent’s legal
heirs to that effect.
10 In view of the above affidavit filed by the second respondent’s
legal heirs, it would suffice, if the appellant pays 75% of the backwages
from the date of the order of the Single Bench till the date of the second
respondent’s superannuation. Further, the second respondent is entitled
to reinstatement with continuity of service, however, with backwages
alone restricted to 50% in terms of the order passed by the Single Bench,
which has attained finality, since the same has not been questioned by the
second respondent. It is made clear that full salary alone should be taken
into account while calculating the terminal benefits like Pension and
Gratuity payable to the second respondent. As already stated, since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
second respondent is no more, the terminal benefits of the second
respondent as well the family pension shall be paid to the eligible persons.
This writ appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Connected
C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
14.07.2023
cad
To
The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Cuddalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.A. No.3582 of 2019
14.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
