Madras High Court
B. Balachandar vs 3 The Principal Secretary To ... on 26 June, 2023
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
B. Balachandar Appellant
v
1 The Management of
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.
Pallavan Illam
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2 The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour
D.M.S. Complex
Teynampet
Chennai 600 006
3 The Principal Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009 Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging
the order dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P. No.27395 of 2016.
For appellant Mr. S.T. Varadarajalu
For RR 1 & 3 Mr. C. Gauthamaraj
For R2 Mrs.C. Sangamithirai
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
JUDGMENT
For the sake of clarity and to avoid prolixity, the parties will be
adverted to as per their rank in this writ appeal.
2 The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as
under:
2.1 The appellant, who joined as Conductor in the first respondent
Transport Corporation on 18.08.2007, was discharged from service vide
order dated 21.06.2012, for a misconduct qua issuance of tickets, following
which, the first respondent filed an approval petition before the second
respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
which was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2014 on the following grounds:
i. it cannot be held that the domestic enquiry was conducted in
the manner it is required to be conducted;
ii. it cannot be held that prima facie case was made out for
discharge based on acceptable evidence in the domestic
enquiry;
iii. the punishment of discharge was owing to vindictive attitude of
the first respondent;
iv. full wages for one month was not paid to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
2.2 Thereagainst, the first respondent filed a writ petition being
W.P.No.27395 of 2016, in which, the first respondent took a stand that
disciplinary proceedings was initiated and domestic enquiry was conducted
before discharging the appellant from service. Whereas, according to the
appellant, he was discharged from service without conducting domestic
enquiry.
2.3 A Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.09.2022,
holding that such rival claims, on facts, cannot be adjudicated in a writ
petition, quashed the order passed in the approval petition and allowed the
writ petition by remanding the matter to the second respondent for fresh
consideration.
2.4 Challenging the allowing of the writ petition filed by the first
respondent, this writ appeal is filed by the workman.
3 The main contention of the appellant is that though the order of
the second respondent, on the whole, is in his favour, the second respondent
has not rendered a finding qua the delay of 8 days on the part of the first
respondent in sending the discharge order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
4 When the matter came up on 22.06.2023 for hearing, we
directed the parties to produce Ex.M.8 marked before the second respondent
to ascertain the last drawn pay and it was accordingly produced today. A
perusal of the same reveals that the appellant was paid only Rs.6,625/- as
monthly wages which is for 25 days @ Rs.265/- per day on the ground that
he was a daily wage employee.
5 At this juncture, it is apropos to advert to Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is extracted below:
“33. Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged under certain
circumstances during pendency of proceedings.-
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of
an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the
standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute
3[or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the
terms of the contract, whether express or implied between him and
the workman-
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute,
discharge or punish whether by dismissal or otherwise, that
workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed,
unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has
been made by the employer to the authority before which the
proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the
employer.”
6 From a reading of the proviso extracted above, it is as clear as
the sky that the employee should be paid wages for one month, which could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
be either 28 days or 29 days or 30 days or 31 days, depending upon the
number of days the month has, in which, the employee is dismissed. In the
instant case, the appellant was discharged on 21.06.2012. Accordingly, the
monthly wages for the entire month of June, i.e., for 30 days, will have to be
paid and not 25 days, as has been paid to the appellant, albeit the fact that he
is a daily wager, since the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), ibid., nowhere states
that the employee shall be paid for the actual number of days he had worked.
In our considered view, the expression “wages for one month” employed in
the proviso is inclusive of paid holidays which the employee would be
entitled to otherwise as per law.
7 It was brought to the notice of this Court by the first respondent
that on 07.10.2022, the difference in wages has been paid which would relate
back to the date of discharge order and that the order of discharge is correct.
This argument does not cut ice with us. Concededly, the discharge order is
dated 21.06.2012 and it was despatched on 28.06.2012 at 14.26 hrs. and thus,
there is a delay of 8 days and it was not sent simultaneously as held by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in which, one of us (SVNJ) was a member,
in V. Palani v TNSTC Ltd. and another1.
1 decided on 23.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
8 Mr. Varadarajalu, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted
before this Court the appellant's affidavit dated 26.06.2023 giving up the
entire backwages from the date of discharge till today.
9 Taking note of the above, in order to shorten the life of the
litigation, by interfering with the order passed by the Single Bench and
restoring the order of the second respondent, we direct the first respondent to
reinstate the appellant into service as a permanent employee with continuity
of service and other attendant benefits within a period of one month from
today and he shall be paid on par with his counterparts on and from the date
of reinstatement. However, it is made clear that:
i. the appellant would not be entitled to any backwages
from the date of dismissal till today;
ii. the wages paid to the appellant during the pendency of
the writ petition by means of an interim order shall not be
recovered from him;
iii. neither the appellant's share nor the first respondent's
share of Provident Fund need be paid for the period from
the date of dismissal till today; and
iv. the appellant's entire service shall have to be taken into
account for the purpose of Gratuity and pension, if any.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
This writ appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Costs made
easy.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
26.06.2023
cad
To
1 The Management of
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.
Pallavan Illam
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2 The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour
D.M.S. Complex
Teynampet
Chennai 600 006
3 The Principal Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.A. No.1272 of 2023
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
