Madras High Court
The Tamilnadu Water Supply And vs N.Panchalingam on 20 November, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.7074 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.7074 of 2006
and W.M.P.No.7710 of 2006
The Tamilnadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board represented by
its Managing Director,
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. N.Panchalingam
2. The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai - 104. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in the
impugned award C.P.No.697 of 1997 on the file of the Labour Court, I
Additional Court, Chennai, dated 21.09.2005, the 2nd respondent herein and
quash the above said award.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Mekala
For Respondents : R1- dismissed vide court order,
dated 24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.P.No.7074 of 2006
: R2 - Court
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed calling for the records relating to the order
of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, dated 21.09.2005 in C.P.No.697
of 1997.
2. It can be seen that the first respondent, workman was originally
employed on work charged basis on 05.11.1981 and ultimately, was
regularised on 24.07.1989 as Technical Assistant in the Water Supply
Division, Tiruvannamalai.
3. Mrs.S.Mekala, learned Counsel for the petitioner/management
would submit that from the date of his regular service, he has been duly
granted increments. While so, he erroneously filed the Claim Petition
claiming increments by considering his service from the year 1981 onwards.
As a matter of fact, the very same workman filed W.P.Nos.25924 and 25925
of 2024 claiming retrospective regularisation which came to be dismissed
on 02.11.2017. Therefore, once his regularisation, from the year 1989,
remains confirmed, then the order in the Computation Petition cannot stand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. I am fully in agreement with the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
However, I am unable to give any relief to the petitioner because this Writ
Petition is filed by arraying workman as the first respondent and the Labour
Court as the second respondent, in the year 2006. Considering the fact that
batta was not paid to the first respondent/workman, this Court passed an
order that unless the petitioner pays batta within the time specified therein
in respect of the respondents, against whom the notice is not served, the
Writ Petition will stand dismissed. There was no compliance with the said
order and accordingly, the Writ Petition stood dismissed as against the
workman by the order, dated 24.06.2021.
5. In view thereof, this Writ Petition, which is technically pending
only because the Labour Court is arrayed as the second respondent, is no
more maintainable in the absence of the workman being the party. It is
another thing that the workman had also not made any claim pursuant to the
Claim Petition and that the subsequent judgment of this Court in
W.P.Nos.25924 and 25925, dated 02.11.2017 will go against the claim
made in the Claim Petition. After recording the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that the Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is dismissed as against the first respondent long ago, I have no other option
than to dismiss the Writ petition by recording the fact that the Writ Petition,
filed subsequently by the workman claiming the benefit of retrospective
regularisation, was also dismissed by this Court.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.11.2024
Neutral Citation : no
grs
To
The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
20.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
