Madras High Court
K.Manikandan vs M/S. Subburaj Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd on 1 April, 2024
W.A(MD)No.523 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESHKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.523 of 2024
K.Manikandan ... Appellant
vs.
1. M/s. Subburaj Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.V.Subburaj,
Madurai Road, Sankar Nagar,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
(As normal party, given up)
3. T.N.Sundararajan
4. P.S.Murugan
5. L.Rathinakumar
6. M.Shankar
7. M.Isakki
8. M/s.Subburaj Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd,
Represented by its General Manager,
S.Ganesan,
S/o. Swaminathan,
Madurai Road, Sankar Nagar,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
th
(8 Respondent is impleaded vide court order dated 20.07.2024 made in
CMP(MD)No.5680 of 2021 in W.A(MD)SR.No.75341 of 2019)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
W.A(MD)No.523 of 2024
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 16.11.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.5671 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Saravanan
For R1 : Mr.M.N.Ramkumar
For R8 : Mr.H.Arumugam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court
dated 16.11.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.5671 of 2009.
2. The writ appellant claimed to have been the employee of the respondent
company along with others where they claimed that their services suddenly
dispensed with. Therefore, in order to seek for reinstatement, they approached the
Labour Court by raising the industrial dispute. Therefore, separate IDs had been
filed. The present appellant filed I.D.No.3 of 1999, which was decided along with
other IDs by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, by order dated 30.04.2008, where the
Labour Court found that within one year period, the employees had not completed
240 days of work continuously in a year. Therefore, on that ground, though it was
found against the workers, ultimately, the Labour Court had come to a conclusion
that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the employee/labour should be paid by
the Management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The said judgment of the Labour Court has not been questioned by the
workers, but the Management had questioned the same and filed a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.5671 of 2009, where the Writ Court, by order dated 16.11.2018, has
accepted the plea of the Management and allowed the said writ petition, against
which, the present appeal has been directed.
4. Heard Mr.D.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.M.N.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.H.Arumugam,
learned counsel for the 8th respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, though has invited our attention to
paragraph 34 of the judgment of the Labour Court and made submissions stating that
these workers, including the appellant, since had been working for more than 240
days in one year, such a finding given by the Labour Court should not be
misconstrued as if that, such finding was given only to deny the benefit sought for by
the workers. Therefore, on that ground, the minimum benefit of paying
compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the employee as directed by the Labour
Court, ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Judge. Therefore, to
that extent, the judgment which is impugned herein, is erroneous, he contended.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Management would submit that
whatever be the findings given by the Labour Court, that have not been questioned
by the workers including the appellant. Therefore, based on the findings only, the
learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, has allowed the same. Hence, it does not
warrant any interference.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
8. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Management, the Labour Court has made a categorical finding that there
has been no evidence to come to a safe conclusion that, the workers have completed
240 days of work continuously in a year.
9. When such finding had been given, whether it was justified on the part
of the Labour Court to give a direction to the Management to pay a sum of Rs.
25,000/- to each of the employee as a compensation, was the question which, of
course, was correctly decided by the learned Judge in the findings given in this
regard in the order impugned, which we do not want to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In view of the same, this Writ Appeal fails and hence it is dismissed. No
costs.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
01.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESHKUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
bala
01.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
