Madras High Court
The Tamilnadu State Transport ... vs P.Ravi on 5 June, 2023
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6221 of 2023
1.The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
By Pass Road, New Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam..
2.The General Manager,
The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Trichy Region,
Trichy.
3.The Branch Manager,
The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Thuvarankuruchi Branch, Trichy.
... Appellants/Respondents
-vs-
P.Ravi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 14.06.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.14145 of 2014.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Jagadeesh Balan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Rahul
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Challenge in the writ appeal is to the order of the Writ Court
directing regularization of services of the respondent with effect from
the date of expiry of 240 days from 20.12.2001.
2. The respondent, who was working as a Driver was dismissed
from service in the year 1999. The said order of dismissal was
challenged before the labour Court and the labour Court passed an
award on 09.08.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent
without back wages and other allowances. Consequent upon the
award of the labour Court, the respondent was re-employed with
effect from 20.12.2001 on a daily wage basis. This by itself, in our
opinion, is an improper implementation of the award of the labour
Court. However, since the respondent had accepted the same, we are
not reopening the said issue. The services of the respondent were
regularised with effect from 01.01.2004 consequent upon the writ
petition filed by the management challenging the award of the labour
Court having been dismissed. The respondent challenged the order
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
of regularization mainly on the ground that it should have been from
the date of expiry of 240 days from 09.08.2001 ie., from the date of
award of the labour Court. However, the writ Court directed
regularization from 20.12.2001, namely, the date on which the
respondent was re-employed consequent upon the award of the
labour Court. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Corporation is on
appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the Corporation would vehemently
contend that taking into account the past conduct of the respondent,
the Corporation had regularised the services of the respondent with
effect from 01.01.2004.
4. We are unable to agree with the said contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants. Once the labour Court had
directed reinstatement and the respondent had already been
reinstated into service on a particular date, his services must be
regularized from the date on which 240 days from the date of
re-employment expires and not from any subsequent date. It is quite
obvious that the Corporation wanted to deny pensionary benefits to
the respondent and therefore, had chosen the date 01.01.2004. The
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
anomaly created by the action of the Corporation has been rectified
by the Writ Court.
4. We do not see any error in the order of the Writ Court in
order to enable us to entertain this writ appeal. Therefore, the writ
appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No Costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Corporation shall pay
the difference in salary within a period of six months from today.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
05.06.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
PM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pm
W.A(MD)No.712 of 2023
05.06.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
