Madras High Court
The Management Of The ... vs K. Krishnamurthy on 27 June, 2023
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR .JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
&
C.M.P. No. 6944 of 2016
The Management of the Kallakurichi
Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Moongilthuraipatti, Sankarapuram Taluk,
Villupuram District – 605 702. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. K. Krishnamurthy
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore. .Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 24.06.2015 passed in
W.P. No. 25794 of 2009.
For Appellant :: Mr.S. Bala Ramesh
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
For Respondents :: Ms. Thenmozhi Shivaperumal
for R1
R2- Court
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2015 passed
in W.P. No. 25794 of 2009.
2. The 1st respondent, who was working as Cane Assistant in the
appellant Mill was issued with a charge memo dated 04.08.2011 specifying
three charges, namely, that he had suppressed the criminal complaint
registered against him in Sankarapuram Police Station, that he absented
from duty very often without prior intimation and that he was negligent and
careless in performing his duties. The 1st respondent submitted his
explanation dated 14.08.2011 to the charge memo. Not satisfied with his
explanation, domestic enquiry was ordered. On the basis of the enquiry
report dated 27.04.2022 holding that the charges were proved, show cause
notice dated 30.04.2022 was issued to the 1st respondent as to why he should
not be dismissed from service. After considering all the materials on record
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
and the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, by order dated
07.05.2022, the employee was dismissed from service. The industrial
dispute raised by the 1st respondent challenging the dismissal order was
taken up as I.D. No. 150 of 2003 by the Labour Court, Cuddalore and the
Labour Court set aside the dismissal order dated 07.05.2002 and ordered
reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. Challenging the
said award, W.P. No. 25794 of 2009 was filed by the Management and this
Court confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and held that the
award shall be executed. As against the said order, the present intra court
appeal has been preferred by the Management.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is seen that during the pendency of the writ appeal, the 1 st
respondent/employee passed away on 11.02.2017 leaving behind his wife,
daughter and son as legal heirs and a memo dated 20.04.2017 to that effect
has been filed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. A copy of the
death certificate of the 1st respondent as well as a copy of the legal heirship
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
certificate dated 22.03.2017 have also been filed along with additional typed
set of papers by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel
for the Management that pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, as
confirmed by the learned Single Judge, the employee was reinstated in
service. The terminal benefits had been settled fully. The employee had
also withdrawn 50% of the backwages deposited pursuant to the interim
orders granted by this Court in the writ appeal. Though initially, gratuity
amount and other terminal benefits had been extended to the employee, after
deducting 50% of backwages, realising the mistake, the amount deducted
was also paid to the wife of the employee (since deceased).
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/employee
(since deceased) would submit that the total amount of backwages payable
to the employee is Rs.1,78,360/- and that the same can be given up provided
the employer considers the request of the legal heirs for compassionate
appointment.
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
7. In response to this suggestion, Mr.Bala Ramesh, learned
counsel for the appellant Management produced a communication signed by
the Managing Director of the appellant Mill on 26.06.2023 before this Court
wherein it is stated that the request of the legal heirs of the deceased
employee for compassionate appointment would be considered and the
relevant portion of the communication is extracted hereunder:
@ghh;itapy; fhQDk; j';fsJ fojj;jpy; khz;gik
brd;id cah;ej
P pkd;wk; tHf;F vz; 25794 of 2009
jPh;g;g[ ehs; 24/06/2015 apid vjph;j;J Miy bjhlh;ej
;
tHf;F vz; W.A. 508 of 2016y; fle;j 19/06/2023k;
njjpad;W khz;gik brd;id cah;ej
P pkd;wj;jpy;
tprhuiz eilbgw;wJ/ mjpy; ,U jug;g[
thj';fisa[k; nfl;l gpd;dh; jpU/ K. fpUc&z
; K:hj
; ;jp.
(nyl;) fUk;g[ cjtpahsh; vd;gtUf;F Miy tH';f
ntz;oa 50% epYit bjhif kw;Wk; gzpahshpd;
rl;lg{h;tkhd thhpRjhuUkhfpa jpUkjp/ K. ghujp.
jpU/ K. fpUc&z
; K:hj
; ;jp. (nyl;) vd;gtUf;F Miyapy;
fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakdk; bjhlh;ghd
jw;bghGJ epiy Fwpj;J Miyapd; epiyghl;oid
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
nehpy; bjhptpf;ft[k; nkYk; ,t;tHf;F 27/06/2023 k;
njjpad;W kWtprhuizf;F tUtjhf
bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
nkw;fhQDk; tptu';fspd; mog;gilapy; v';fsJ
Miyapd; epjpepiy rhpapy;yhj fhuzj;jhy;
jpU/ K. fpUc&z
; K:hj
; ;jp. (nyl;) vd;gthpd; thhpRk;
kidtpa[khfpa jpUkjp K. ghujp/ vd;gtUf;F chpa
murhiz kw;Wk; mYtyf eilKiwfis gpd;gw;wp
fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp nfhhpa[ss
; th;fspd;
Kd;Dhpik go gzptH';f eltof;if nkw;bfhs;fpnwhk;
vd;w tpguj;jpid md;gl
[ d; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwhk;/@
8. In view of the statement made across the bar by the learned
counsel for the employee (since deceased) and the communication extracted
supra, the writ appeal stands disposed of holding that the award of the
Labour Court requires no intereference. As 50% of backwages have been
given up and the employer has agreed to provide compassionate
appointment, we expect the employer to consider the request for
compassionate appointment based on seniority list maintained, if any, for
the purpose of granting compassionate appointment and preference shall be
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
given to the legal heirs of the 1st respondent/employee (since deceased). No
costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 27.06.2023
To
1. The Management of the Kallakurichi
Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Moongilthuraipatti, Sankarapuram Taluk,
Villupuram District – 605 702.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
nv
W.A. No. 508 of 2016
27.06.2023
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
