Madras High Court
The Management Of Deccan Enterprises vs The Presiding Officer on 6 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2024:MHC:3130
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
and
C.M.P.Nos.23389 & 23397 of 2023
The Management of Deccan Enterprises,
No.4, 7th Avenue, Harrington Road,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
Rep. by its Proprietor K.Krishnamoorthy. ...Appellant in
W.A.No.2784/2023
The Management of Deccan
Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.4, 7th Avenue, Harrington Road,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
Rep. by its Proprietor K.Krishnamoorthy. ...Appellant in
W.A.No.2796/2023
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
1st Additional Labour Court,
Chennai. ..1st Respondent in
both Writ Appeals
2.R.Amalraj ...2nd Respondent in
W.A.No.2784/2023
2.S.Venkatesalu ...2nd Respondent in
W.A.No.2796/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent Act, to allow the Writ Appeals and set aside the common order
dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.23579 & 23580 of 2013.
(in both appeals)
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Agam Legal
For R1 : Court
For R2 : Mr.R.Arumugam
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
Since the issue involved in both these Writ Appeals is one and the
same, with the consent of both the parties, the following common
judgment is passed.
2. When the appellants-Management had terminated the services of
both the 2nd respondents herein with effect from 14.11.2005, on the
allegation that their official performance was poor, Industrial Disputes in
I.D.Nos.283 and 284 of 2008 were raised before the 1st Additional
Labour Court, Chennai, challenging the orders of termination. In the
meantime, since it was claimed by the appellants-Management that their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
Companies were closed with effect from 31.07.2007 and 09.09.2006
respectively, the Labour Court had passed a common award dated
11.07.2013, directing the Management to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as
compensation to each of the 2nd respondents herein, in lieu of their
reinstatement in service. Challenging the award of compensation, both the
workmen had filed Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.23597 and
23580 of 2013 respectively. The learned Single Judge had dismissed both
the Writ Petitions, predominantly on the ground that the compensation
was awarded by the Labour Court in exercise of its discretion and that the
amount not only include the monies that the employees lost, but also to
re-compensate them with the mental suffering they had undergone. These
orders of dismissal are put under challenge in the present Writ Appeals.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-
Management submitted that the Labour Court was not correct in holding
that the termination of both the 2nd respondents herein was in violation of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'), since their services were terminated only due to poor performance,
not amounting to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the
Act. Even otherwise, he would submit that since the Companies are no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
longer in existence, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded to each of the
workmen was exorbitant.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
workmen submitted that the Management had failed to establish before
the Labour Court that the termination of these workmen was due to their
misconduct and therefore, there is no infirmity in the award of
compensation by the Labour Court.
5. On the finding that the services of both the workmen were
terminated without issuance of any charge memo and in violation of the
principles of natural justice and further that the Management had failed to
establish the closure of their Companies before the Labour Court, the
compensation came to be ordered in favour of these workmen. We do not
find any infirmity in such a finding. In normal circumstances, the
workmen would be entitled for retrenchment compensation as provided
under the Act. However, the Labour Court had restricted the
compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- alone to each of the workmen.
6. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
was justifiable, since it was in exercise of the discretion of the Labour
Court and by way of compensation to the loss of revenue and the mental
suffering. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court that each of the workmen
would be entitled for payment of compensation, in lieu of re-instatement,
does not require interference.
7. However, the learned counsel for the appellants made a request
to take into account the fact that the Company has closed down their
business way back in the year 2006 and 2007 and sought for interference
to the amount of compensation. He further submitted that pending the
Writ Petitions, the Management had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,415/- to the
2nd respondent in W.A.No.2784 of 2023 and Rs.1,48,093/- to the 2nd
respondent in W.A.No.2796 of 2023, in the month of August, 2013.
8. In consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel
for the appellants and by taking into account that the Companies are no
longer in existence for more than 18 years, the total compensation to each
of the workmen could be fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-.
9. For all the foregoing reasons, the total compensation fixed at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
Rs.5,00,000/- each to both the 2nd respondents herein, by the Labour
Court in its award passed in I.D.Nos.283 and 284 of 2008, dated
11.07.2013, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.Nos.23579 and 23580 of 2013, dated 05.06.2023, is modified to
Rs.3,00,000/- each. The appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to
Mr.R.Amalraj, after deducting Rs.1,50,415/- and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
to Mr.S.Venkatesalu, after deducting Rs.1,48,093/-, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
10. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals stand disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
06.08.2024
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
To
The Presiding Officer,
1st Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
hvk
W.A.Nos.2784 & 2796 of 2023
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
