Madras High Court
C/O.Tamilnadu Thiriyarangu ... vs M/S.Tnk Govindaraju Chetty & Co. Pvt. ... on 19 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2024:MHC:3396
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 09.09.2024
Pronounced on 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
and
CMP.Nos.17216 of 2016 & 943 of 2022
1. B.Ganesan
2. R.P.Karthikeyan
3. M.Ramamurthy
4. S.Ramu
5. T.P.Rajendran
6. S.Sivakumar
7. P.Vijayakumar
8. A.Arjunan (Died)
9. E.Babu
10. T.G.Kuppusamy
11. S.Mohan
12. N.Parthasarathi
13. R.Rajagopal
14. V.Rameshbabu
15. G.RameshRao
16. S.Santhanaraj (Died)
17. C.Sundaram
18. P.Dinakaran
19. S.Selvaraj
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
20. K.Srinivasan
21. E.Ganesan
22.V.Jayavel (Died)
23. A.Kumaravelu
24. S.Masilamani
25. V.Muraligopal
26. K.Neelamohan
27. S.V.Ramki (Died)
28. J.Fathima
29. K.Govindammal (Died)
30. N.Indira
31. M.Maheswari
32. M.Nagammal
33. V.Ramalingam
34. P.Saradha (Died)
35. A.Velankannai
36. N.Venkatamma
37. S.Victoria
38. V.Karunakaran
39. S.Daisy
W/o.Late S.Santhanaraj
40. S.Charles Raj
S/o.Late S.Santhanaraj
41. S.Clinton Raj
S/o.Late S.Santhanaraj
(A39 to A41 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 16th appellant vide order dated 18.07.2024
made in CMP.Nos.3994, 15397, 18294, 18302,
18318 & 18321/2022)
42. Krishnaveni
W/o.Late V.Jeyavel
43. Kamatchi
D/o.Late V.Jeyavel
44. Varalakshmi
D/o. Late V.Jeyavel
45. Narendrakumar
S/o. Late V.Jeyavel
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
46. Bhavani
D/o. Late V.Jeyavel
(A42 to A46 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 22nd appellant vide order dated 18.07.2024
made in CMP.Nos.3994, 15397, 18294, 18302, 18318
18321/2022)
47. R.Tamilselvi
W/o.Late S.V.Ramki
48. Vennila
D/o.late.S.V.Ramki
49. R.Mani
R/o.late S.V.Ramki
(Appellants 47 to 49 are impleaded as LRs of the
deceased 27th appellant vide order dated 18.07.2024
made in CMP.Nos.3994, 15397, 18294, 18302, 18318
and 18321/2022)
50. Dinakaran
S/o.Saradha
51. Allirani
D/o.Saradha
52. Haridoss
S/o.Saradha
53. Mahalakshmi, D/o.Saradha
54. Alamelu, D/o.Saradha
55. Mageshwari, D/o.Saradha
(A50 to A55 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 34th appellant vide order dated 18.07.2024
made in CMP.Nos.3994, 15397, 18294, 18302,
18318 & 18321/2022)
56. K.Radhakrishnan, S/o.K.Govindammal
(A29 (died) is substituted by the appellant 56
as LR of the deceased A29 vide order dated 18.07.2024
made in CMP.Nos.3994, 15397, 18294, 18302,
18318 &18321/2022)
57. S.Umamageshwari,
58. M.Sarala
59. A.Mohan
3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
(A57 to A59 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 8th appellant vide order dated 18.07.2024
made in CMP.Nos.3994, 15397, 18294, 18302
18318 and 18321 of 2022)
C/o.Tamilnadu Thiriyarangu Thozhilalargal Sangam,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
4-A, Rajivgandhi Nagar Main Road,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Erukancherry, Chennai-600 118.
... Appellants
Vs.
1. M/s.TNK Govindaraju Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Owner of Devi, Devi Paradise, Devi Bala and
Devi Kala Theatres rep. by K.N.Varadarajan,
Executive Director, T.N.K.House,
48, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2. The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
3. S.Kamal
4. A.L.Balasubramanian
5. M.N.Dev Anand
6. Mohammed Jamaludhin
7. M.Arumugam
8. V.Kannan
9. G.Mohan
10.Mohammed Eliyas
11.S.Murali
H.Ravi (Deceased)
12.C.Susairaj
13.N.Varadhan
14.D.Vijayakumar
15.V.Parthasarathy
16.S.K.Saravanan
17.A.Kripanandan
18.T.Nagarajan
4/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
19.S.Perumal
20.C.Satish
21.J.Charles
22.A.Elumalai
23.K.R.Parthiban
24.K.Rajkumar
25.V.Sivakumar
26.S.Suresh
27.K.Govindamma
28.C.Manjula
S.Kuyini (deceased)
29.R.Sowri
30.R.Kalaiselvi
31.R.Surender
32.H.Damayanthi
33.N.Vasu
34.V.Jayapriya
35.V.Girija
C/o.Tamilnadu Thiraiyarangu Thozhilalargal Sangam,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
4-A, Rajivgandhi Nagar Main Road,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Erukancherry, Chennai-600 118.
... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
aside the order passed in WP.No.22249 of 2012 dated 16.12.2015.
For Appellants : Mr.SP.Srinivasan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Anand Kumar for R1
R2-Labour Court
F3 to R37 - formal parties
*****
5/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2016
JUDGMENT
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
The “respondents” [hereinafter shall be referred to as “Workmen”] in
the writ petition are the appellants herein. The writ petitioners were arrayed
as respondents [hereinafter shall be referred to as “Management”] herein.
The writ petition was filed assailing the order of the Labour Court passed in
C.P.No.84 of 2009.
2. The brief facts which give rise to the instant writ appeal is that, the
Management owns Cinema Theaters. The workmen have joined with the
Management on different dates and have been working there as permanent
employees. It is the further case of the workmen that they are the members
of “Tamil Nadu Thiraiyarangu Thozhilalargal Sangam”. It is the further case
of the workmen that the Management comes under the Tamil Nadu Shops
and Establishments Act, 1947 and are also covered by the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948. According to the workmen under the Minimum Wages Act, the
Government has been issuing various Government Orders, time to time,
revising the minimum wages. The workmen would further state that the
wages paid was not in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act and
therefore, prayed to compute the money value according to the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Orders.
3. The said petition was resisted by the Management by contending
that the workmen have been drawing monthly wages as per the wage
settlement. The Management has also stated that even prior to the settlement
period, the workmen were paid wages according to the Minimum Wages Act.
The wages which have been paid to the workmen is based upon a settlement
under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act, and that the same is higher than the
minimum wages. Hence, would contend that the computation petition is not
maintainable, and liable to be dismissed.
4. The Labour Court, though did not find any infirmity in the quantum
of wages, has otherwise found infirmity in the mode of calculation. As a
concomitant, the Labour Court has computed the disputed difference in
salaries.
5. Assailing the said order, the Management preferred a writ petition,
wherein, the Writ Court found illegality in the order and set aside the same.
Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the workmen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are before this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants/workmen would vehemently
contend that according to the orders issued by the appropriate Government
under Section 3 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages of an
employee has to be calculated as per the mode provided in the Government
Order. He would further contend that the Government Order stipulates that
while calculating monthly wages, the monthly wages has to be divided by 26
days, and the resultant daily wage again has to be multiplied with 30 days. It
is the contention of the workmen that the Labour Court has rightly computed
the minimum wages and hence, prayed to restore the order of the Labour
Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the
judgments in (i) Inder Singh and others Vs. Labour Court, Jullundur and
another reported in AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 310 (V.56 C 53); (ii)
Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd., Vs. Their Workmen and others reported in
(1977) 2 SCC 705 and (iii) Sadhu Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1467.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Management, at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the first instance would submit that out of 38 workmen, as against 8
workmen, the appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel would further
contend that out of the remaining 30 workmen against 29 workmen their
claims were settled and they had acknowledged full and final receipt. Thus,
it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Management that, if at all
there is any claim, it could only be against one Mr.B.Ganesan, but the Union,
with an ulterior motive, is contesting the writ appeal. It is the further
contention of the learned counsel for the Management that the procedure
adopted by the Labour Court is against the mandate of Factories Act and
therefore, prayed to interfere with the appeal.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.
9. The sum and substance of the issue is not in respect of the wages
being less than the minimum wages, but, the issue is, whether monthly wage
was calculated in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the
Government orders issued by the appropriate Government under Sections 3
and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act. For ready reference, we deem it
appropriate to extract the relevant stipulation in G.O.(2D) No.25, Labour and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Employment, dated 18.06.1996 relied by the appellants:-
“(v) To arrive at daily rates of wages, the monthly wages shall
be divided by 26.
(vi) To arrive at monthly rates of wages, the daily rates of
wages shall be multiplied by 30.”
The Labour Court, by relying upon the above clauses stipulated for
calculating the monthly wages had found the difference between actual wages
paid and the wage as per the above calculation, to be in shortage of the
actual monthly wages. In short, the Labour Court found that for every
month, 4 days salary was not paid.
10. But, on a plain and literal reading of clauses (v) and (vi) would
give lucid enunciation that, wherever a monthly wages paid and in any case,
if the same needs to be converted into the daily wages, it has to be divided by
26, as the 4 days are provided as compulsory holidays under Section 52 of
the Factories Act. Therefore, factoring such 4 paid compulsory holidays, it
was directed to be divided by 26 days.
11. However, if the workman is getting daily wages, and in any case, it
needs to be converted into monthly wages, it has to be multiplied by 30 days,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as the 4 paid holidays should also be construed as working days. Therefore,
the clauses (v) and (vi) hold different fields and hence, the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellants is not in consonance with the literal and
plain meaning of the above clauses. To put it differently, the clauses (v) and
(vi) cannot be applied jointly.
12. The learned counsel for the Management relied upon the wage slip,
which reflects that the workmen were being paid wages on monthly basis. It
is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act
are intended to achieve the object of social justice to the workmen employed
in the scheduled employment by prescribing minimum wages. Therefore, in
the present case, when the workmen were admittedly paid minimum wages,
the rationale followed by the Labour Court, in interpreting G.O.(2D) No.25,
Labour and Employment, dated 18.06.1996, is erroneous.
13. Interestingly, the Labour Court was of the view that it had arrived
at such conclusion, based upon the admission of the Management witnesses.
It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be any estoppal against a
Statute and the Government Orders cannot be wrongly applied on the basis of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a wrong understanding. At this juncture, the workmen relied the judgment
mentioned in paragraph 6 of this order. We do not disagree on the ratio of
the above precedents. But, the issue here is, the finding of the Labour Court
is against law and perverse, which defect can be cured under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the order of
the learned Single Judge, in interfering the order of the Labour Court, is in
order, and does not require any interference.
14. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected CMPs are also closed.
[M.S.R., J.] [C.K., J.]
19.09.2024
kmi
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S. RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
