Madras High Court
P. Ravichandran vs The Management on 27 June, 2023
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
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. 1387 of 2021
P. Ravichandran ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Management,
Sharp Industries,
Sharp Nagar, Kalapatti,
Coimbatore – 641 048.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court
Coimbatore. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in
W.P. No. 28185 of 2018.
For Appellant :: Mr.V.Sivakumar
1\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Ravindran,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S. Bazeer Ahmed for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
Challenging the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in W.P. No. 28185 of
2018, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner joined the service of the
respondent Management as a fitter on 03.05.1988 and was a permanent
worker. During the course of his work, all of a sudden, the appellant was
directed to report duty at Nagpur to attend to certain service works. He was
transferred to Nagpur to attend to the service works. According to the
petitioner, though he submitted his objections, he joined duty at Nagpur and
finally, he was transferred again to Coimbatore. However, the
appellant/writ petitioner was not permitted to join duty and he was orally
terminated from service. The appellant/writ petitioner raised an industrial
dispute in I.D. No. 131 of 2013 questioning his oral termination. The
2\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
Labour Court, Coimbatore, after analysing the materials on record, passed
an award on 28.11.2017 directing the Management to pay lumpsum
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs as full and final settlement with regard to the
entire claim. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Labour Court, the
appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition in
W.P. NO. 28185 of 2018 seeking reinstatement, continuity of service with
full backwages and other attendant benefits and by order dated 28.11.2019,
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition confirming the award
passed by the Labour Court. Challenging the same, the present intra court
appeal has been preferred by the employee.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
4. Questioning the oral termination, the industrial dispute was
raised by the workman and the Labour Court, after analysing the evidence
on record, came to the conclusion that the employee would be entitled to
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs which will be in full and final settlement of all
the claims pertaining to the industrial dispute. The Labour Court also
3\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
observed that as there was strained relationship between the employer and
the employee, it would not be feasible for the employer to provide
employment and the employee can be given adequate compensation instead
of reinstatement. As the employee, while deposing as W.W.1, had stated
that he had suffered loss of Rs.3 lakhs in view of illegal retrenchment, the
quantum of compensation payable by the Management was fixed as
Rs.3 lakhs. The claim of reinstatment and other benefits were not granted.
5. Before the Labour Court, the Management had taken a plea that
the employee was sent to Nagpur and after going to Nagpur, he had returned
back to Coimbatore without prior intimation or information to the officers
concerned and in spite of several letters issued by the Management vide
Exs. M1, M6 and M7, the employee did not report for work. Apart from
denying verbal termination, in the written statement and additional written
statement filed before the Conciliation Officer and also in the counter
statement filed before the Labour Court, the Management has stated that
there was no refusal of employment and though the employee was asked to
report for work, he did not do so. The relevant portions indicating the
4\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
above stand of the Management are extracted hereunder:
".......kDjhuh; ntiy bra;a jahuhf ,Ug;gjhf
kDtpy; Twpf; bfhz;L tpl;L ,Jehs; tiu
gzpf;F M$uhfhky; ,Ue;J bfhz;L bjhHpw;jhth
K:yk; rl;l tpnuhj gyd; bgWtjpnyna Fwpahf
,Ue;J tUfpwhh;/ kDjhuiu gzpf;F M$uhFk;go
eph;thfk; gy;ntW foj';fs; mDg;gpa[k; mjid
mth; myl;rpag;gLj;jpf; bfhz;L gzpf;F
M$uhfhky; ,Ue;J tUfpwhh;/ kDjhuh;
eph;thfj;jpw;F vt;tpj epge;jida[k; tpjpf;fhky;
gzpf;F M$uhFk; gl;rj;jpy; mtUf;F gzp tH';f
jahuhf cs;sJ/"
@,e;j tHf;ifg; bghWj;jtiu. Kdjhuiu
eph;thfk; gzp ePf;fKk; bra;atpy;iy/ gzp
tH';ft[k; kWf;ftpy;iy/ Mfnt mtuJ
bjhHpw;jhth epiyepWj;jj;jf;fjy;y/ mtuJ
jhth – bjhHpw;jhthnt my;y vd;gjhy;.mjd; kPJ
jh';fs; rkur ngr;R nkw;bfhs;Sk; mtrpa R{HYk;
Vw;gltpy;iy/ kDjhuiu gzpf;F jpUk;g[khW
gyKiw mwpt[Wj;jp foj';fs; mDg;gp mjd;
5\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
efy;fSk; j';fSf;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/
,e;;epiyapy; kDjhuh;. nkw;go nghypahd jhthit
thg!; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L gzpf;F jpUk;g[tij
tpLj;J gpothjg;nghf;nfhL. nkw;go jhthit
typa[Wj;jp rkur Kwptwpf;if nfhhp tUfpwhh;/
kDjhuiu eph;thfk; ntiy ePf;fnk bra;atpy;iy
vd;gjhy;. MtuJ nghypahd jhth kPJ rkur ngr;R
thh;j;ij nkw;bfhs;snth. Rkur Kwpt[ mwpf;if
mDg;g[k; R{Hnyh vHtpy;iy vd;gij kDjhuUf;F
vLj;Jf;Twp. g[hpaitj;J mtuJ bjhHpw;jhth
epiyepWj;jj;jf;fjy;y vd;gija[k; bjspt[gLj;jp
,e;j nfhg;ig Koj;Jf; bfhs;SkhW nfl;Lf;
bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/@
"8. The respondent management submits that it is prepared
to provide employment tothe petitioner as usual, as they
neither refused employment to the petitioner nor retrenched
him from service. However, the petitioner should not press
the Industrial dispute raised before this Honourable Court
and he may be report for work without imposing any
6\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
conditions or reserving rights to continue the "so called"
dispute before this Honourable Court."
Besides, there is no iota of evidence to show that the employee had
been terminated. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was
termination, before the Conciliation Officer as well as before the Labour
Court, the Management had asked the employee to report for work
contending that there was no denial of employment. Even after counter
statement filed before the Labour Court wherein the Management had stated
that it was prepared to provide employment, the employee could have joined
duty and put an end to the dispute, instead, he had received the
compensation in the industrial dispute, which was also confirmed by the
learned Single Judge. As observed by us, even assuming that the employee
who had joined service on 03.05.1988, had been divested of his duty, in
spite of repeated requests to him by various communications and also the
statement made before the Conciliation Officer and Labour Court by the
Management, it is the employee, who had not reported for work.
7\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
6. This Court had earlier suggested to the employer as to whether
the compensation could be increased to Rs.5 lakhs. Mr.S. Ravindran,
learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent Management submitted that he
he would put across the same to the Management and report back to Court.
When the matter is taken up today, learned Senior Counsel for the
Management would submit that the employer is willing to give
compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and not more than that.
7. Taking note of the finding of the Labour Court about the
strained relationship between the employer and the employee, the
employee's failure to report for work, absence of evidence as to whether
there was any verbal termination at all as the employee, having gone to
Nagpur for work did not report back and in spite of repeated requestes by
the Management, the employee did not join duty, in order to give a quietus
to the matter, as agreed by the employer, compensation of Rs.4 lakhs is
granted and the employee would not be entitled to any other benefits except
gratuity, if he is otherwise eligible. We make it very clear that in case, the
employee is going to receive the compensation under protest, he shall return
8\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
the amount to the employer. It is also made clear that the compensation of
Rs.4 lakhs is exclusive of Gratuity and it is towards full and final settlement
of all the claims pertaining to the industrial dispute and in lieu of
reinstatement. The amount payable to the employee shall be paid within a
period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 27.06.2023
To
1. The Management,
Sharp Industries,
Sharp Nagar, Kalapatti,
Coimbatore – 641 048.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court
Coimbatore.
9\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
W.A. No. 1387 of 2021
27.06.2023
10\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
