Madras High Court
N. Saravanakumar vs The Management on 14 June, 2023
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
C.M.P. Nos. 4716 & 4721 to 4723 of 2022
N. Saravanakumar ..Appellant in both
the writ appeals
Vs.
1. The Management
ELGI Equipments Ltd.,
rep. by Head-Legal & Secretarial
Mr.Shyam Vasudevan,
Coimbatore.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore. ..Respondents in
both the writ
appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1\6
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeals as against the common order dated 25.01.2021
passed in W.P. No. 816 & 815 of 2017.
For Appellant :: Mr.V. Ajoy Khose
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Basheer Ahmed for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered By S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The writ appeals have been preferred as against the common order
dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 816 &
815 of 2017 respectively, setting aside the preliminary award dated
01.06.2016 and the final award dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Labour
Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 51 of 2010 and remitting the matter back to
the Labour Court for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law.
2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, Mr.S. Ravindran,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management would submit that he
is not going to address with regard to the issue of fairness of domestic
enquiry as the Management had let in substantial evidence in order to prove
the charges before the Labour Court. Learned Senior Counsel would further
submit that the Labour Court has rendered a finding that the applicant in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2\6
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
industrial dispute is a workman and that issue is also not going to be
addressed. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would state that as there are
serious charges against the employee with regard to loss of funds to the
establishment, he would confine his argument only with regard to the merits
of the matter and not with regard to the two issues mentioned supra.
3. Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the workman would
contend that the Labour Court had looked into all the aspects and interfered
with the punishment and granted reinstatement with 25% backwages.
However, 14 years have gone by since the date of dismissal of the workman
in May, 2009 and now, that the industrial dispute has been remanded to the
Labour Court for consideration afresh and disposal, the Labourt Court may
be directed to decide the issue within a period of two months on the mertis of
the matter apart from directing the Management to pay last drawn wages till
the industrial dispute is adjudicated finally. Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel
for the employee would further submit that the parties may be permitted to
let in additional evidence, if required, for which Mr.S.Ravindran, learned
Senior Counsel for the Management has no objection, if the parties are so
advised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3\6
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
4. Though we agree with most of the submissions of both
the counsel, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the learned
counsel for workman that monthly wages should be paid till the disposal of
the industrial dispute as the dismissal order stands restored and there cannot
be any payment of monthly wages by means of a direction as the question of
applicability of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise.
5. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the matter is
pending for the past 14 years, while confirming the order of the learned
Single Judge partially, in view of the fact that the employer has given up the
issues that the 'employee is not a workman' and fairness of domestic enquiry,
in case, any application is filed by either of the parties to let in additional
evidence, the same may be permitted by the Labour Court and arguments on
merits will have to be addressed by the parties and the Labour Court has to
pronounce the award on conclusion of arguments. Arguments by either
parties will have to be addressed and concluded within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Labour Court,
Coimbatore, is expected to pronounce the award within a period of two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4\6
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
months on completion of arguments. It is made clear that the wages paid
under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall not be
recovered.
6. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Connected C.M.Ps are closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 14.06.2023
To
1. The Management
ELGI Equipments Ltd.,
rep. by Head-Legal & Secretarial
Mr.Shyam Vasudevan,
Coimbatore.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5\6
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 of 2022
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
W.A. Nos. 680 & 682 2022
14.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6\6
