Madras High Court
The Management vs The Sengai Anna Mavatta Jananayaga ... on 15 November, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.21630 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.21630 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.31893 of 2024 & 21002 of 2023
The Management,
Sanmina SCI India Pvt. Ltd.,
OZ-1, SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ,
Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District - 602 105.
Represented by its Director HR
R.Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sengai Anna Mavatta Jananayaga Thozhilalar Sangam,
Regd. No.1062/CPT,
No.4/172, National Highways,
Otteri, Vandaloor,
Chennai - 600 048.
2. The Secretary,
Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam,
No.268, Bajanai Kovil Street,
Pillaipakam, Sriperumpudhur Vattam,
Kanchipuram District - 602 105. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21630 of 2023
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a
Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the award dated 08.05.2023
passed in O.P.No.3 of 2021 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
For Respondents : Mr.Mr.S.Kumareswamy for R2
No appearance for R1
ORDER
When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for
both sides submitted that the matter is settled between the workmen and the
Management. A Joint Compromise Memo duly signed by both sides and the
learned counsel is also filed before this Court. The memorandum of settlement
entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Form-B
is also enclosed.
2. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint
Compromise Memo and 12(3) settlement annexed with the Joint Compromise
Memo and they shall form part of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Since the lumpsum payment is also made to the workmen as per the
compromise, this Court adds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of O.P.Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited and
others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 377 in paragraph No.10(VI) held as follows:
"VI - Since the amount is being paid in one lump sum, it is
likely that the employer may take recourse to Section 192 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides that any person responsible for
paying any income chargeable under the head 'Salaries', shall, at the
time of payment, deduct income tax on the amount payable at the
average rate of income computed on the basis of the rates in force
for the financial year in which the payment is made, on the estimated
income of the assessee under this head for that financial year. If,
therefore, the employer proceeds to deduct Income- tax as provided
by Section 192, we would like to make it abundantly clear that the
appellant would be entitled to relief under Section 89 of the Income
Tax Act which provides that where by reason of any portion of
assessee's salary being paid in arrears or in advance by reason of his
having received in any one financial year salary for more than 12
months or a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of
Section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, his income is assessed at a
higher rate than that it would otherwise have been assessed, the
Income Tax officer shall on an application made to him in this behalf
grant such relief as may be prescribed. The prescribed relief is set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
out in Rule 21-A of the Income Tax Rules. The appellant is entitled
to relief under Section 89 because compensation herein awarded
includes salary which has been in arrears as also the compensation
in lieu of reinstatement and the relief should be given as provided by
Section 89 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 21-A of the Income
Tax Rules. The appellant is indisputably entitled to the same. If any
application is required to be made, the appellant may submit the
same to the competent authority and the Corporation shall, through
its Tax Consultant, assist the appellant for obtaining the relief. The
appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. Order in
the aforesaid terms is passed."
4. Further in Sundaram Motors Private Limited Vs. Ameerjan and
another reported in AIR 1985 SC 144, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"7. We have made it abundantly clear in our judgment and order
dated August 7, 1984 that the compensation awarded is in lieu of back
wages, and future wages in lieu of reinstatement which were and would
be payable from year to year. Therefore, we made it very clear that the
entire amount awarded by our judgment shall be spread over from
1970 to 1989, 1970 being the year of dismissal from service and 1989
being the year of retirement on superannuation as per the relevant
service rules. We are accordingly clear in our minds that viewed from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any angle, respondent-Ameerjan, the workman is fully entitled to the
relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act. No other view on this
point is possible. In order to satisfy the requirements of law, the
respondent-Ameerjan shall with the assistance of the appellant and its
income-tax consultants make the necessary application to the Income
Tax Officer having jurisdiction in the matter at Bangalore for relief
under Section 89 and the officer concerned shall, without further
enquiry, grant him immediate relief under Section 89 and dispose of
the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of the
application so that the spirit and purpose of our judgment and order
would be implemented without unnecessary delay and the agony and
torture of unemployment heaped upon the lowly paid respondent
Ameerjan from 1970 be relieved.
5. Therefore, in the present case also, the workmen will be entitled to the
same benefit in respect of one lumpsum payment and the authorities shall act
accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
15.11.2024
Neutral Citation : Yes
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Sengai Anna Mavatta Jananayaga Thozhilalar Sangam,
Regd. No.1062/CPT,
No.4/172, National Highways,
Otteri, Vandaloor,
Chennai - 600 048.
2. The Secretary,
Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam,
No.268, Bajanai Kovil Street,
Pillaipakam, Sriperumpudhur Vattam,
Kanchipuram District - 602 105.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vji
and
W.M.P.Nos.31893 of 2024 & 21002 of 2023
15.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
