Madras High Court
The Superintendent vs Ms.P. Sivasankari on 8 June, 2023
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 08-06-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
&
C.M.P. No. 11872 of 2023
1.The Superintendent,
Railway Mail Service,
RMS 'M' Division,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Sub Record Officer,
RMS 'M' Division,
Gandhinagar,
Vellore-632 006. ..Appellants
Vs.
1.Ms.P. Sivasankari
2.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court,
Chennai. ..Respondents
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order, dated 16.08.2022, passed in
W.M.P.No.21014 of 2017 in W.P.No.24372 of 2016, on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Karthikeyan
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the interim order, dated
16.08.2022, passed in W.M.P.No.21014 of 2017 in W.P.No.24372 of 2016,
directing the Railways to pay the last drawn wages to the first respondent
employee during the pendency of the Writ Petition.
2. The Labour Court has passed the Award as follows :
“15. The claim of the petitioners is not only for
reinstatement but also for permanency. As stated this is not a
subject matter of order of reference and cannot be considered.
The only question is whether the petitioners can be reinstated
in the same position in which they were.
16. In all the identity cards produced, the petitioners
are described as Outsiders Sorting Assistants. All the
petitioners have stated that they were not given any
appointment order. It was not based on any Recruitment
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
Rules they were taken. However, there is a fact that they were
ousted from work even when work was available with the
respondents. This is clear from the evidence given by MW1.
He has stated during his cross-examination that even now
outsiders are engaged. That shows that work is still available
with the respondents. So the respondents are in a position to
take back the petitioners as Outsiders, Sorting Assistants itself.
The claim of the petitioners for backwages could not be
entertained since they were working on daily wages but paid
on monthly basis. If the petitioners are not willing to be
reinstated in the same position, they are to be compensated as
contemplated under Section 25-F of the ID Act. Almost all the
petitioners have joined during the same period. The
compensation payable is fixed as Rs.2.00 lakhs for each of the
petitioners. At the option of the petitioners, the respondents
are either to engage the petitioners in the same position or to
pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs within two months of
publication of the award.
17. Accordingly the respondents are directed to re-
engage the petitioners or pay compensation @ Rs.2.00 Lakhs
to each of the petitioners at their option within two months of
the publication of the award.”
3. For the sake of convenience, Section 17-B of the Industrial
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
Disputes Act,1947, in short, ''the Act'', is extracted below :
''17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in
higher courts.- Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the
employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or
the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman,
during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or
the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any
maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman
had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an
affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:
Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High
Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and
had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or
part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under
this section for such period or part, as the case may be.''
4. The main contention of the appellants is that the Management has
not filed counter to the miscellaneous petition and that the order under
challenge has been passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. In the present appeal, there is no ground to the effect that the
respondent employee is gainfully employed and hence she would not be
4\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
entitled to last drawn wages. The appellants have also not produced any
document with regard to the gainful employment of the respondent
employee, whereas, the respondent employee has filed an application being
W.M.P.No.21014 of 2017 in W.P.No.24372 of 2016, wherein, in Paragraph
No.6, she has categorically stated as follows :
6. When the respondent employee has fulfilled the criteria laid down
under Section 17-B of the Act, she would be entitled to last drawn wages till
the disposal of the Writ Petition or till the date of death before
superannuation or till the date of superannuation in case the Writ Petition is
not disposed of. Hence, we are of the view that there is no error in the order
of the learned Single Judge in directing the Management to pay the last
drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Act mentioned supra with
effect from 13.07.2016. In case the employee is reinstated, she will be
entitled to be paid on par with her counterparts.
5\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1165 of 2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
7. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 08.06.2023
To
The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court,
Chennai.
W.A.No.1165 of 2023
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
