Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs / on 6 August, 2024
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
Rev.Aplw(MD).No.10 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
REV.APLW(MD)No.10 of 2024
in
W.P(MD)No.7961 of 2011
and
W.P(MD)No.13658 of 2011
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Madurai Division Limited,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai-10. ... Review
Petitioner
/Vs./
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
2. A. Karuppiah ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Section 114 read with
Order Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to Review the order,
dated 30.11.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.7961 of 2011 on the file of this
Court and dismiss the above writ petition.
For Review Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Siva Kumar, for R-2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw(MD).No.10 of 2024
W.P(MD)No.13658 of 2011
A. Karuppiah ... Review Petitioner
/Vs./
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
2. The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai Division) Limited,
Now renamed as
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai Division) Limited,
Madurai Region,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Madurai. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
from the 1st respondent Labour Court relating to the impugned award,
dated 07.10.2010 passed in I.D.No.186/03 of the 1st Respondent in so far
as denying back wages to the petitioner and quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service with back wages and continuity of service and all other attendant
benefits.
For Review Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Siva Kumar
R-1 : Court
For R-2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw(MD).No.10 of 2024
JUDGMENT
This review application has been filed to Review the order,
dated 30.11.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.7961 of 2011.
2. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7961 of 2011 was filed
to quash the impugned award, dated 07.10.2010 passed in I.D.No.186 of
2003 on the file of the 1st Respondent, wherein the Labour Court had
directed the employer to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity
of service, but declined back wages.
3. The 2nd respondent was an employee of the Transport
Corporation/Review Applicant. The allegation against the 2nd respondent
is misappropriation wherein the 2nd respondent while issuing tickets had
misappropriated Rs.195.50/-. Hence, disciplinary proceeding was
initiated. Finally, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service.
Challenging the said dismissal order, the 2nd respondent has preferred an
appeal before the Labour Court in I.D.No.186 of 2003. The said
dismissal order was set aside and the employer was directed to reinstate
the petitioner with continuity of service, but backwages was declined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Aggrieved over the same, the Management has filed a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.7961 of 2011.
4. While hearing the writ petition, this Court had perused the
material records placed before this Court and thereafter held that the 2nd
respondent is entitled to pensionary benefits. However, instead of
granting continuity of service, this Court has restricted the period and
held that the 2nd respondent is entitled to calculate the period of service
from 2003 to 2021, the non-employment period and directed to calculate
only 50% of the service period from 2003 to 2021. And this Court
declined back wages to the 2nd respondent. Against the same, the present
review is filed.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Review Applicant
submitted that since it is non-employment period, then the employee is
not entitled to calculate the said service for pensionary benefits. It is seen
the Labour Court has granted continuity of service, but declined the
backwages. If continuity of service is granted then the employee would
get the benefits for the entire period from 2003 to 2015, but the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be granted since the employee had not worked for the said period.
Under “No work No Pay” principle the employee may not be entitled to
salary. It is for this reason and also by taking the financial status of the
review applicant, this Court has directed to take 50% of service for
granting of pensionary benefits. Therefore this Court is of the considered
opinion that the review applicant has not raised any sustainable grounds
to consider the Review Application.
6. The employee had filed writ petition in W.P(MD)No.
13658 of 2011 challenging that portion of the Order where it had
declined backwages. Since the employee was not working during the
said period from 2003 to 2015, under the principle of 'No work No pay'
the employee may not be entitled to any benefits. However, by taking the
nature of the case this Court had only directed to take 50% of the said
period from 2003 to 2015 to calculate pensionary benefits. Therefore this
Court is of the considered opinion that the employee had not raised any
legal sustainable ground to entertain the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. By taking all facts into consideration, this Review
Application and Writ Petition are dismissed. No Costs.
8. Post the matter on 23.08.2024, for reporting compliance.
06.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
KSA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO:
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
2. The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai Division) Limited,
Now renamed as
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai Division) Limited,
Madurai Region,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SRIMATHY, J.
KSA
Order made in
in
in
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
