Madras High Court
2 The Assistant Executive ... vs 2 Karunagaran on 19 June, 2023
W.A. No.979 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.979 of 2023 & C.M.P. No.9761 of 2023
1 The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board
Kamarajar Salai
Chennai 600 005
2 The Assistant Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board
Urban Sub-Division
Sankari Appellants
v
1 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Salem
2 Karunagaran Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the
order dated 28.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.21274 of 2005.
For appellant Mr. S. Ravindran, Sr. Counsel
for Ms. S.Mekhala
R1 Court
For R2 Mr. V. Ajay Khose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
------
W.A. No.979 of 2023
JUDGMENT
For the sake of clarity and to avoid verbosity, the parties will be referred to
as per their rank in this writ appeal.
2 The facts in brief leading to the institution of this writ appeal are as
under:
2.1 The second respondent joined the services of the appellant Board on
15.11.1992 as Electrician and his services were terminated on 17.01.1994.
Against his termination, he raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent
in I.D.No.6 of 1997, in which, vide award dated 28.08.1997, the appellant Board
was directed to reinstate him into service.
2.2 Assailing the award of the first respondent, the appellant Board
preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.14328 of 1998, which was dismissed on
the basis of the settlement entered into, in the meanwhile, under Section 12(3) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in pursuance of the said settlement, the
second respondent was reinstated into service.
2.3 However, since he was not paid as per the settlement, he filed a
Computation Petition in C.P. No.680 of 2002 before the first respondent, which
was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2004 determining the amount to be paid to
him as Rs.3,28,338/- with interest @ 6%.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.979 of 2023
2.4 The order passed in the computation petition was appealed against by
the appellant Board, in W.P. No.21274 of 2005, which was dismissed by a Single
Bench vide order dated 28.02.2023, questioning the correctness of which, this writ
appeal has been filed.
3 According to Mr. S. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant Board, the second respondent is not entitled to any relief and even
going by his averments in the affidavit filed in this writ appeal, he would be
entitled to only Rs.72,116/- and the determination of Rs.3,28,338/- by the first
respondent is incorrect and perverse as there is no documentary or verbal evidence
on the side of the second respondent to substantiate the same.
4 When this Court posed a suggestion to the learned counsel for the
second respondent as to whether there is a feasibility for the second respondent
giving up a portion of the amount determined, Mr. Ravindran submitted that it will
have greater repercussion, inasmuch as, several workmen may knock at the doors
of this Court claiming benefits, which they may not be actually entitled to and that
the second respondent workman is not entitled to any amount, much less, what
has been stated by means of settlement before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.979 of 2023
5 Mr. V. Ajay Khose, learned counsel for the second respondent,
submitted that pursuant to the settlement under Section 12(3) ibid., the appellant
Board should have granted all the monetary benefits to the second respondent by
conferring on him permanent status on completion of 480 days in a period of 24
calendar months and that the order of the first respondent in extending the benefit
of Rs.3,28,338/- with interest @ 6% per annum, which is also upheld by the
Single Bench is perfectly justified.
6 He also admitted that there is no verbal evidence tendered. But,
according to him, determination of Rs.3,28,338/- made by the first respondent is
based on the settlement reached under Section 12(3), ibid., entered into between
the appellant Board and the union.
7 A glance of the order passed by the first respondent in the
computation petition would make it clear that there was no evidence tendered by
the second respondent. However, a copy of the 12(3) settlement dated 08.08.1996
has been marked before the first respondent as Ex.P.3. The first respondent ought
to have computed and determined the amount only based on evidence and mere
settlement itself is not sufficient to determine the amount payable to the second
respondent. It is also worth pointing out that the first respondent also, in the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.979 of 2023
dated 29.11.2004, has observed that as it is not known as to whether the second
respondent was granted permanent status and whether his services have been
regularised or not. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the first respondent are
extracted below:
“8. The petitioner in claimed the amount as per the 12(3) settlement
dated 08.08.1996. Ex.P.3 is the 12(3) settlement dated 08.08.1996 in the 12(3)
settlement certain conditions have been laid down. As per the conditions laid down
in 12(3) settlement, the employees who have completed 480 days in two years are
entitled to permanent status and also re-fixation of salary. It was also stated that the
re-fixation of salary shall be granted to the employees from 01.06.1996. In the
above settlement, basic salary and D.A. of the employees of each category have not
been mentioned. It is also not known whether the petitioner was granted
permanent status and whether the petitioner's services have been regularised or not?
It has not been stated by the petitioner that from what date his service was
regularised by the respondent or whether the management has passed any order
informing the service of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the wage
claimed by the petitioner should be paid to the petitioner subject to the G.O., rules,
or any order of the management. The petitioner is also entitled to 6% interest from
the date of this petition till the date of realization. The points are answered
accordingly.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed the respondents are directed to
pay a sum of Rs.3,28,338/- to the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of this
petition till the date of realization, subject to the rules or order of the Management.
The petitioner is also entitled to cost of Rs.300/- from the respondents.”
(emphasis supplied)
As categorically and rightly observed by the first respondent, unless there is a
concrete evidence, the amount due to the second respondent cannot be
determined/computed.
8 In view of the above, the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Single
Bench and also the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the first respondent are set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh disposal in
W.A. No.979 of 2023
accordance with law, by ascertaining the amount due to the second respondent
based on the settlement dated 08.08.1996 entered into under Section 12(3), ibid.,
which was marked as Ex.P.3, and also based on the verbal and documentary
evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is made clear that both parties are
entitled to adduce both verbal and documentary evidence to substantiate their case
and the first respondent is expected to ascertain the amount due to the second
respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The first respondent shall conduct the proceedings on a day-to-day
basis without adjourning the case beyond seven working days at any point of time.
9 It is represented by the second respondent that the calculation now
produced by the appellant Board is only upto a limited period and not the entire
period. We are not inclined to delve into this aspect. The amount lying in the
deposit with the first respondent, shall be returned to the appellant Board together
with interest. The amount, if any, withdrawn by the second respondent can be
retained by him. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the outcome
of the computation petition. In case, the second respondent gets himself relieved
from the services of the appellant Board, the disputed amount paid alone shall be
retained by the appellant Board and other terminal benefits, if any, can be paid to
the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.979 of 2023
This writ appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Costs made easy.
Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
19.06.2023
cad
To
The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Salem
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.979 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.A. No.979 of 2023
19.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
