M.Ramu vs The Managing Director
2024 Latest Caselaw 15247 Mad

Madras High Court

M.Ramu vs The Managing Director on 7 August, 2024

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J.Nisha Banu

                                                                W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                      RESERVED ON         :     19.06.2024
                                      PRONOUNCED ON :           07.08.2024
                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
                                                  AND
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
                                      W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024
                                                 and connected CMPs
                M.Ramu                                         ..Appellant in WA.1165/2024
                K.Gangadharan                                  ..Appellant in WA.1169/2024
                S.Vinayagamoorthy                              ..Appellant in WA.1177/2024
                G.Kumar                                        ..Appellant in WA.1179/2024

                                                        .Vs.

                1.The Managing Director
                  State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Ltd
                  No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.

                2.State of Tamil Nadu
                  Rep.by its Secretary to Government
                  Transport Department, Fort St.George
                  Chennai 600 009.                                   ... Respondents in all the
                                                                           above Writ Appeals.

                PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set
                aside the Common Order dated 23.08.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.8419, 8570, 8686
                and 9183 of 2021.


                1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                    W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

                                  For Appellant      : Mr.R.N.Amarnath

                                  For Respondents : Mr.Hasan Fizal
                                                    Standing Counsel for R1
                                                    Mr.T.Chezhian for R2
                                                    Additional Government Pleader

                                                  COMMON JUDGMENT

Per J.NISHA BANU, J.

The above Writ Appeals are preferred by the workmen as against the

common order passed in W.P.Nos.8419, 8570, 8686 and 9183 of 2021, whereby,

the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petitions filed by the Management and

dismissed the writ petitions filed by the workmen and in the operative portion of

the order, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:-

“ the workmen have produced the xerox copy of the certain documents to show that they have completed continuous employment of 240 days, which alone would not be sufficient to prove the same. Though cogent and convincing materials it is for the workmen to prove their case and in the absence of any acceptable material to show that the workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service, the workmen have failed to prove their case and hence, they are not entitled for reinstatement and therefore, the question of consequential benefits will not arise.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

2. The cases on hand are arising out of the award dated 28.02.2020 passed

by the Presiding Officer, Third Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.Nos.139

to 142 of 2016.

3. To the extent necessary, we shall now go into the facts of the case as

follows:-

(i) The appellants-workmen were employed as conductors under daily

wages from the year 1995. They were not appointed through proper channel. They

were orally terminated after one year. Since the appellants completed 240 days of

employment, they approached this court for employment. This court directed the

Transport Corporation to provide employment to the workmen.

(ii) Challenging the said direction, transport corporation filed

W.A.Nos.1294/1997 to 1299/1997. The Division Bench directed the Transport

Corporation to confer permanency to the workmen, who completed 240 days of

service.

(iii) Based on the said order, the workmen were served notice dated

03.06.2000 to appear for interview with the proof of their service for 240 days.

The workmen furnished copy of the duty challans. However, the Transport

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

Corporation did not provide employment to the workmen. Therefore, workmen

filed Writ Petitions before this court and this court passed order to confer

permanency to workmen who were working more than 240 days.

(iv) Before the Additional Labour court, the transport corporation taken the

stand that the benefit of preference or priority, is contrary to the judgments of the

High Court and Supreme Court, therefore, the workmen are not entitled to any

relief.

(v)After trial, the Labour Court, after elaborate discussion, allowed the

industrial dispute; set aside the oral termination; directed the transport corporation

to reinstate the workmen in the present pay scale for the conductors with no back

wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, in respect of denial of service and other

attendant benefits, workmen preferred a batch of Writ Petitions and the

Management, challenging the direction of reinstatement, filed a batch of Writ

Petitions. The learned Single Judge, as extracted in para 2 of this judgment,

allowed the writ petitions filed by the Management and dismissed the writ

petitions filed by the workmen. Challenging the said impugned order dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

23.08.2023, the present batch of Writ Appeals are filed by the workmen.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the observation

of the learned Single Judge that the workmen produced only the xerox copy of

documents relied on by them and no original documents were marked and the

same would not be sufficient to show that they have completed continuous

employment of 240 days is not sustainable.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Transport corporation supported

the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that no interference is required

in the well reasoned order.

7. Heard both sides and perused the records.

8. A perusal of the proceedings before the Additional Labour Court would

go to show that during pendency of the main industrial dispute, the workmen filed

Interlocutory Application for a direction to the transport corporation to produce the

records under the custody of the Management. But, the Management did not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

produce those documents and stated that they are not available and that those

records were destroyed due to efflux of time. Before the Labour Court, the

respondent-Management neither examined any witnesses nor marked documents,

to rebut the workmen's side evidence.

9. The Labour Court, in its Award, elaborately discussed and drawn adverse

inference as against the respondent-corporation. The duration of the employment

period served by the workmen has not been disputed by the corporation. It is the

presumption that they continuously worked, unless the contrary is proved.

Therefore, in the absence of contra evidence adduced by the respondent-

corporation, the evidence of workmen is reliable and acceptable. It is the cogent

evidence of all the workmen that they were continuously working for 240 days and

therefore the findings of the Labour Court that the workmen completed continuous

service of 240 days, is perfectly in order.

10. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed that once the

application is filed by the workmen seeking production of certain documents by

the Management, the same need to be produced by the Management. In case when

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

the documents called upon are not in custody of the Management, the burden

shifts on the workmen to prove their case. The said view of the learned Single

Judge, did not take into consideration the aspect that the custodian of the

documents is the management and they have to produce the documents and if they

failed to produce the documents, adverse inference can be drawn as against them.

Therefore, the common order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside

and the award passed by the Labour Court is to be restored.

11.In view of the above said discussions, the Writ Appeals are allowed and

the common order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.8419, 8570, 8686 and

9183 of 2021 dated 23.08.2023 is set aside. The award passed in I.D.Nos.139 to

142 of 2016 dated 28.02.2020 on the file of the Labour Court, Chennai, are

restored. No costs. Consequently, connected CMPs are closed.

                                                                         (J.N.B.,J)       (P.D.B.J)
                nvsri                                                             07.08.2024






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                              W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024




                To

                1.The III Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

                2.The Managing Director

State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Ltd No.2, Pallavansalai Chennai 600 002.

3.The Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

J.NISHA BANU.,J.

and P.DHANABAL., J.

nvsri

W.A.Nos.1165, 1169, 1177 and 1179 of 2024

07.08.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis