Madras High Court
The Area Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 2 January, 2024
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
1/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 02-01-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.Nos.3517, 3229, 3233, 3216 & 3258 of 2023
The Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Post Box No.2911,
Tatabad, Coimbatore - 641012. ... Appellant in W.A.Nos.3517,3229 &
3233/2023
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai.
2.Ms.S.Sharmila ... Respondents in W.A.No.3517/2023
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai.
2.Ms.K.Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents in W.A.No.3229 &
3233/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
K.Dhanalakshmi ... Appellant in W.A.No.3216/2023
S.Sharmila ... Appellant in W.A.No.3258/2023
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court,
I Floor, B Wing,
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai - 6.
2.The Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Post Box No.2911,
Tatabad Post,
Coimbatore – 641 012. ... Respondents in W.A.Nos.3216 &
3258/2023
W.A.No.3517 of 2023 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order, dated 25.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.10746 of 2017.
W.A.No.3229 of 2023 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order, dated 24.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.6342 of 2017.
W.A.No.3233 of 2023 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order, dated 24.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.7304 of 2017.
W.A.No.3216 of 2023 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order, dated 24.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.6342 of 2017.
W.A.No.3258 of 2023 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order, dated 25.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.10482 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
For Appellant in W.A.Nos.3517,3229 & 3233/2023 &
Respondent No.2 in W.A.Nos.3216 & 3258/2023 :
Mr.M.Imthias
For Appellant in W.A.Nos.3216 & 3258/2023 &
Respondent No.2 in W.A.Nos.3517,3229 & 3233/2023 :
Mr.Balan Haridas
COMMON JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ''the workmen''
and ''the management''.
2. According to the workmen, they have been working with the
management continuously without break till they were verbally terminated from service;
the management has violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, in short,
''the Act'', and, therefore, they are entitled to be reinstated in service with all benefits. It
is further stated that even though they have been employed as casual labourers, the
Management Witnesses have admitted that there is acute shortage of hands and that the
job is perennial in nature and hence they should have been reinstated as permanent
employees under the management. It is also their case that copy of the Attendance
Register is also marked before the Labour Court, but, the Labour Court has
unfortunately deprived them of the benefit of reinstatement; the Labour Court held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act; that, as the workmen have worked
only for a shorter duration, they are not entitled to be reinstated; that the work was not
available; hence, the question of putting the workmen back in service was not
permissible, and, accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to
K.Dhanalakshmi and Rs.1.25 lakhs to S.Sharmila.
3. Mr.M.Imthias, learned counsel for the management, would contend that
though the casual employment is not disputed, the workmen have hardly worked for 15
months, and, when there is no exigency of work, there is no need to put the workmen
back in service. According to him, the award of the Labour Court in granting
compensation itself is excessive and the learned single Judge ought not to have
enhanced the compensation to the workman from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1.25 lakhs in the
case of K.Dhanalakshmi and confirmed Rs.1.25 lakhs in the case of S.Sharmila. He
also drew the attention of this Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, 2013 (5) SCC 136, and
referred to Paragraphs 28 and 29 thereof, which are extracted below :
''28. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh. That was a case where the
workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984-85, were
terminated without following Section 25-F. The industrial dispute was
raised after five years and although the Labour Court had awarded
reinstatement of the workmen which was not interfered by the High Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
this Court set aside the award of reinstatement and ordered payment of
compensation. In paragraphs 4 and 5 (pg.559) of the Report this Court
held as under:
“4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid
down that although an order of retrenchment passed in
violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be
set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed.
This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does
not hold a post and a permanent employee.
5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the
fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as “daily
wagers” and they had merely worked for more than 240 days,
in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said
to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet
the ends of justice.”
29. In light of the above legal position and having regard to the
facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily
wager on 01.03.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from
01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise
its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by
the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering the
above aspect at all. The award dated 28.06.2001 directing reinstatement
of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the
facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set
aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the
appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We order
accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9 per cent
per annum.''
According to him, when there is violation of Section 25F of the Act, the question of
automatic reinstatement is not correct and the Apex Court has interfered with the
reinstatement with 25% back wages in the said case and awarded only Rs.50,000/- as
compensation. Further, he would contend, that, in the present case, the workmen have
worked for lesser duration and, even assuming there is violation of Section 25F, the
question of reinstatement does not arise. He also did not agree with the contention of
Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the workmen, that the workmen are willing to
give up back wages provided they are reinstated.
4. We have heard both sides.
5. The fact that the two workmen herein have joined the management as
casual labourers and rendered service for more than one year is not in dispute. The
Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there is violation of Section 25F of the
Act and awarded compensation, which is referred to supra, but, however, it did not
provide the workmen the employment on the ground that the work was not available.
For the sake of convenience, the evidence tendered by the Management Witness in
I.D.No.120/2015 is scanned below :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
From the above evidence, it is clear that there is acute shortage of manpower.
Therefore, we are of the view that when there is an admission that no compensation has
been paid to the workmen and that the job is perennial in nature, they should have been
continued in service on account of shortage of manpower. In our opinion, the decision,
referred to by Mr.M.Imthias in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation v. Gitam Singh, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of this case.
In that case, the workman was a daily rated employee and there was no proof that the
job was perennial in nature. However, in the present case, as admitted by the
management in evidence, the job is perennial in nature and, therefore, the finding of the
Labour Court that the management was justified in depriving the employment to the
workmen on the ground that there was no work available is perverse. In the light of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (dead) & Others v. State of Tamil
Nadu & Others, 2002 (3) SCC 533, we are of the view that the decision of the Apex
Court referred to by Mr.M.Imthias is distinguishable on facts. Here, the workmen have
been disengaged in the year 2013. Normally, in the present set of facts, workmen should
have been reinstated with all benefits. Taking note of the decision referred to by
Mr.M.Imthias, we could have deprived entire back wages to the workmen and put them
back in service as permanent employees. However, in order to give a finality to the
matter and bring down the life of the litigation, we are of the view that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to each of the workmen would be sufficient. We make it
clear that if the amount mentioned supra towards compensation is not paid within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, it will fetch interest 7.5%
per annum from the date of the award.
6. Before parting with this judgment, we are reminded of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of The Food Corporation of India v. Food
Corporation of India, 1985 (2) SCC 136, wherein, against the very same Management,
which is before this Court, the Court criticized the action of the Management in trying
to convert the Direct labourers into one of Contract labourers. Even in a recent decision
of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10499, 10511 of 2011 and 7961 of 2014, dated
20.08.2018, the same view was reiterated. In the light of the evidence let in by the
Management in the present case, Food Corporation of India must ensure, that, for the
job of perennial nature, Direct Labour is to be recruited and their services are to be
continued. Under the Constitution of India, the Government should not only provide
education to children but also provide opportunity for public employment, ensuring
livelihood of the citizens, which alone will give safety to dependants of labourers, once
they grow up.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
7. Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, the
connected C.M.P.Nos.28743, 26413 and 26431 of 2023 are closed.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 02-01-2024
dixit
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai.
2.The Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Post Box No.2911,
Tatabad Post,
Coimbatore – 641 012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/12 W.A.No.3517/2023 & Batch
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
dixit
W.A.No.3517 of 2023 & Batch
02-01-2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
