Madras High Court
The Management vs 2 The Presiding Officer on 22 June, 2023
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.1324 of 2023 & C.M.P. No.13041 of 2023
The Management
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Ltd.
Pallavan Illam
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002 Appellant
v
1 E. Perumal
2 The Presiding Officer
II Additional Labour Court
City Civil Court (Annexe Building)
High Court Compound
Chennai 600 104 Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the
order dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.P. No. 23174 of 2014.
For appellant Mr. M. Chidambaram
For R1 Mr. V. Ajay Khose
R2 Labour Court
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
JUDGMENT
For the sake of clarity, the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 will
be adverted to as Transport Corporation, workman and Labour Court,
respectively.
2 The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are succinctly
stated as under:
2.1 The workman joined the Transport Corporation as Conductor on
30.10.1986. While so, he was issued with a charge memo dated 13.06.2007
for remaining unauthorisedly absent for more than 8 days from 26.05.2007.
Not satisfied with his reply dated 26.06.2007, the Transport Corporation
dismissed him from service vide order dated 28.02.2008.
2.2 Assailing his dismissal, he raised an industrial dispute in
I.D.No.403 of 2009 before the Labour Court, Chennai, in which, an award
dated 29.05.2013 was passed ordering reinstatement with continuity of
service and 40% backwages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
2.3 The main reasoning assigned by the Labour Court for granting
the aforesaid relief to the workman was that no domestic enquiry was
conducted before resorting to capital punishment of dismissal, thereby,
depriving him of the opportunity to defend his case.
2.4 Challenging the said award, while the workman filed
W.P.No.20009 of 2014, the Transport Corporation filed W.P. No.23174 of
2014.
2.5 A Single Bench of this Court which heard both the writ petitions
together, vide a common order dated 31.03.2022, dismissed the writ petition
filed by the Transport Corporation and allowed the writ petition filed by the
workman by directing the Transport Corporation, inter alia, to pay full
backwages to the workman from the date of his dismissal till the date of his
superannuation.
2.6 The aforesaid order passed by the Single Bench is appealed
against before us by the Transport Corporation.
3 Heard Mr. M. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the Transport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
Corporation and Mr. V.Ajay Khose, learned counsel for the workman.
4 Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
M.C.D. v Praveen Kumar Jain and others 1, the Single Bench held that
inasmuch as the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, have not been complied with, the punishment of dismissal from service
becomes invalid. Further, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar Dixit v Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker 2, the Single Bench held
that the workman is entitled to all the benefits.
5 We find no error in the judgment under assail granting full
backwages as against 40% backwages awarded by the Labour Court. While
holding so, we are not oblivious of several judgments of the Supreme Court,
as per which, entitlement to full backwages is not automatic when the
dismissal is set aside on illegalities. But, in the instant case, the Single Bench,
finding that there was no reason for depriving the workman of 60%
backwages, has awarded full backwages, which finding is in complete
agreement with us.
1 (1998) 9 SCC 468
2 (2015) 9 SCC 345
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
6 During the pendency of this appeal, the workman filed an
affidavit dated 21.06.2023, the relevant paragraph of which reads thus:
“10. I respectfully submit that from out of the total back wages, I do
hereby agree for adjustment of the 17 B wages already paid to me and also
for deduction of PF Contributions, from the total back wages payable to me
from the date of my dismissal to the date of my superannuation. I agree to
receive 50% from out of the balance amount to be paid to me after
adjustment of the amounts under the above two heads, if the Appellant
Corporation agrees to pay me Gratuity and Pension for my entire service
from the date of my joining to the date of my retirement and if they agree to
pay me the other service / terminal benefits and if they agree to pay me the
above amounts including arrears of pension within a stipulated time.”
7 As per the above affidavit, the workman is agreeable for giving
up 50% of the balance amount due to him after adjustment of wages paid
under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act and P.F. contribution.
8 Considering the aforesaid circumstances of the case, more so,
the fact that the State has suffered starvation of funds due to COVID-19 for
two years, the order of the Single Bench and the award of the Labour Court
are modified as under:
a The workman is entitled to be reinstated in service
as if there is no order of dismissal and shall be deemed to be in
service till the date of superannuation;
b Since the workman has attained the age of
superannuation, the question of reinstating him into service
does not arise;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
c Though the wages paid under Section 17-B of the
I.D. Act cannot be adjusted, in the case on hand, the workman
has given an undertaking for adjusting the wages paid under
Section 17-B, ibid., from the amount payable to him. Hence,
the wages paid u/s 17-B, ibid., can be adjusted.
d As the Transport Corporation has not contributed
towards the workman's share of Provident Fund, it is the duty
of the Transport Corporation to contribute towards its own
share and the workman's share towards Provident Fund from
the date of dismissal from service till the date of
superannuation;
e After adjustment of the wages payable under
Section 17-B, ibid. and adjustment of the employer's and
workman's contributions towards Provident Fund, 50% of the
balance amount of backwages shall be paid to the workman
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment;
f The Transport Corporation shall pay Gratuity and
arrears of Pension within two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment, failing which, interest @ 10% per
annum from the date of the award is liable to be paid to the
workman and such interest component shall be recovered from
the officials concerned who are responsible in regard thereto;
and
g The Pension amount commencing from
01.08.2023 shall be paid regularly.
h The amount of backwages shall be paid separately
from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation in the
light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundaram
Motors Pvt. Ltd. V Ameerjan and another3.
3 (1985) 1 SCC 118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
This writ appeal stands disposed of in the above terms sans costs.
Connected C.M.P. stands closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
22.06.2023
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
To
The Presiding Officer
II Additional Labour Court
City Civil Court (Annexe Building)
High Court Compound
Chennai 600 104
W.A. No.1324 of 2023
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
