Madras High Court
The Registrar vs C.Deivarani on 4 November, 2024
C.R.P.No.1069 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.1069 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.7676 of 2023
The Registrar,
Periyar University, Salem .. Petitioner
Versus
C.Deivarani .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the Order in REP.No. 7 of 2021 in ID.No. 660 of 2004
dated 04.03.2023 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Selvaraj
ORDER
This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court cum Executing Court in REP.No.7 of 2021
in ID.No.660 of 2004 dated 04.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The civil revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in ID.No.660 of
2004. The sole respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant in 1988 and
subsequently, dismissed from service on 19.01.2002. Challenging the order
of dismissal, she presented ID.No.660 of 2004. After a detailed trial, the ID
came to be allowed on 23.05.2013. The said award was not challenged by
the civil revision petitioner before this Court by way of writ petition. It has
attained finality.
3. The ID was disposed of on the following terms:
“Kothf kD gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,d;wpypUe;J 2
khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; vjph;kDjhuh; kDjhuUf;F gzpj;bjhlh;r;rpa[ld; gzp
tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ gpd;rk;gsj;ij bghWj;jtiu
kDjhuh; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l gpwF gzpapy;yhky; ,Uf;fpnwd; vd;W
ve;j xU rhl;rpa rhd;whtzKk; ,lg;gltpy;iy/ eph;thf jug;gpYk;
gzpePf;fj;jpw;F gpd;dpl;L kDjhuh; rk;ghjpf;Fk; gzpapy; ,Ue;J te;jhh;
vd;W ePjpkd;wk; Vw;Fk; tifapy; ve;j xU MtzKk; jhf;fy;
bra;atpy;iy/ Mf ,Ujug;gpYk; nkw;brhd;d tifapy; bray;gl;ljhy;
No work no pay vd;w mog;gilapy; kDjhuh; gpd;rk;gsk; tH';f
ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy vd ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ/
jug;gpdh;fspd; cwt[ Kiwia fUj;jpw;bfhz;L mtuth;
bryt[j;bjhifia mtutnu Vw;Wf;bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Since the order was not complied with, the respondent filed
REP.No.7 of 2021. The learned Judge ordered notice in the execution
petition and received a counter from the petitioner herein. In the execution
proceedings, the respondent wanted reinstatement together with monetary
benefit of Rs.68,60,000/-. The Executing Court held that as the respondent
is claiming differential figures, it left it open to the respondent to file a
computation petition and held that the claim of the respondent will have to
be decided in the said proceeding.
5. Insofar as the order of reinstatement that had been produced before
the Court, the learned Judge held that it is contrary to the award passed in
ID.No.660 of 2004 and ordered arrest. Hence this revision petition.
6. I have heard Mr.Godson Swaminathan for the civil revision
petitioner and Mr.K.Selvaraj for the respondent.
7. Mr.Godson Swaminathan, inviting my attention to the letter dated
21.12.2022, argues that the civil revision petitioner had called upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent to join duty on or before 28.12.2022. Therefore, the order of
arrest passed by the Executing Court requires interference.
8. Mr.K.Selvaraj pleads that the petitioner merely wanted to
implement the award that had been passed by the Court as early as
23.05.2013. He states that having waited for more than eight years, his
client presented an execution petition only on 19.07.2021. Pointing out that
there is no explanation for the delay from 2013 to 2021, he pleads that the
order of Executing Court deserves confirmation. Furthermore, inviting my
attention to the proceedings of the civil revision petitioner in
PU/R/Estt.R6/005807/2023 dated 16.03.2023, he states that as the order of
the Executing Court has been complied with, nothing further remains to be
decided in this revision. In fact, he urges that the Execution Petition itself
may be closed as the orders of the ID had been complied with.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.Godson
Swaminathan and Mr.K.Selvaraj for the respective parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The order passed in ID.No.660 of 2004 has not been challenged.
That being the position, the respondent ought to have been restored in
service as ordered by the Labour Court on 25.03.2013. Yet the civil revision
petitioner, a pre-eminent educational institution in the State, waited for a
further period of 10 years before passing the order on 21.12.2022.
11. The order of the Labour Court could have been challenged by the
University, but the University took a call option not to challenge the same.
Once an award, which has the same force as a decree, is passed and not
challenged, the only option available to the civil revision petitioner is to
implement it. For reasons best known, it did not do so, constraining the
unfortunate workwoman to file an Execution Petition.
12. Though the order was partially complied on 21.12.2022, I cannot
hold that it was a full compliance of the award. This is because, the
respondent was granted reinstatement and continuity of service. What was
denied was only back wages. Whereas she would be entitled to all reliefs as
if she continued in service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The order dated 21.12.2022 does not disclose that the respondent
was granted continuity of service. It is only through a subsequent order
dated 16.03.2023 that it has become clear that the civil revision petitioner
had decided to grant continuity of service and other consequent reliefs to the
respondent.
14. In the light of the above discussion, since there has been
subsequent compliance of the award of the Industrial Court, I do not find
any necessity to interfere with in this revision. Suffice it to record the
statement of Mr.Godson Swaminathan that the civil revision petitioner shall
pass separate orders as regards the entitlement of the respondent from
23.05.2013 to till date within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this Order.
15. As the order of the Labour Court has been complied with, by
virtue of the order dated 16.03.2023, nothing further remains to be
adjudicated in REP.No.7 of 2021. The learned District Judge cum Labour
Court is requested to record compliance and terminate the Execution
Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
04.11.2024
nl
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
To
The Labour Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
04.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
