Madras High Court
M/S.Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. ... vs The Presiding Officer on 2 April, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
2025:MHC:868
W.A.No.831 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 19.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.831 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.5765 of 2024
M/s.Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd,
Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer cum Director,
Chennai Port Trust,
Old Administration Office Building,
Chennai - 600 001. ... Appellant
versus
1.The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai.
2.G.Suresh Kumar
3.R.Harikrishnan
G.Bhuvanesh (Died)
4.S.Balachandran
5.K.Lakshmanan
6.B.Rajeshwari
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
W.A.No.831 of 2024
7.B.Akshaya
8.B.Keerthana ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order of this Court dated 26.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.3269 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed
For Respondents : Labour Court - R1
Mr.V.Govardhanan
For M/s.Row And Reddy - R2 to R8
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
This intra Court appeal is filed against the order dated 26.09.2023 in
W.P.No.3269 of 2017, whereby award of the labour court in respect of
reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and back wages came
to be confirmed.
Short facts to be noted in the appeal are as follows;
2. The appellant-private limited company is engaged in the business
of container terminal handling work and took over the container handling
operations of the Chennai Port Trust. The respondents 2 to 8 workmen had
joined in the service with the appellant as Checker in December 2001. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
May 2005, there had been a strike and in order to weaken the collective
bargaining power, the appellant gave name sake promotions to the workmen
as Junior Officers on 01.06.2005. However, the workmen continued to
carry on duties of Checker. To ventilate their grievances, they became
members of Employees Union and on 14.02.2013 they placed a charter of
demands and as the same was not acceded to, a strike notice came to be
issued.
3. Further on 17.07.2013, the Union had furnished a list of members
to the conciliation officer demanding payment and to protect the work
condition of the workman pending conciliation proceedings. However, the
appellant transferred the workmen on 01.08.2013 by giving time till
14.08.2013 to join in the transferred place. Though the conciliation officer
directed the appellant to maintain status quo, still the appellant by letter
dated 06.08.2013 directed the workmen to obey the transfer order, failing
which, action will be taken. This forced the workmen to approach this Court
in W.P.No.22492 of 2013 and when the matter came up for hearing, the
appellant withdrew the transfer order. Instead of allowing the workmen to
report for the duty, the management issued an order of termination on
21.04.2014. Contending that the termination of service is contrary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’), and is in violation of Sections 25 G, 25H and 25F of the Act, the
workmen raised an industrial dispute and pursuant to the reference by the
Government, the workmen filed claim petitions in I.D.Nos.118,119,120, 122
of 2014 and 4 of 2015 before the Labour Court.
4. The appellant had resisted the claim petitions mainly on the ground
that the respondents are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the I.D Act, as they are working as supervisors in the management cadre.
Further, it was contended that the transfer was part of the conditions
outlined in the promotion order and as such the appellant justified the
transfer that had been effected. The Labour Court by a common award dated
27.10.2016, held that both the transfer and the subsequent termination were
the result of victimization and directed the appellant for reinstatement of the
workmen with continuity of service and back wages.
5. The management has challenged the said award in the writ petition.
The writ Court by considering the evidence of two witnesses of the
management MW1 and MW2 and particularly the cross examination, had
found that name sake promotion was effected only to deprive the workmen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
from enjoying the status of workmen but they were not working in
supervisory capacity. The Writ Court, therefore, held that the respondents
are entitled to raise dispute in terms Section 2(s) of the I.D Act and declined
to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed the
reinstatement with continuity of service and also the back wages. Assailing
the order passed by the writ Court, the management had preferred the above
appeal.
6. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, though made broad
submissions on entire issue, however restricted his arguments only in
respect of award of full back wages. In this regard, it is the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel that the award of back wages is not automatic as a
consequence of ordering reinstatement. It is for the workmen to plead and
prove that they were not in gainful employment anywhere. He further
contended that in the instant case, even separate affidavits have not been
filed by individual workmen and only one witness WW1 G.Bhuvanesh
alone was examined, who had filed the proof affidavit. This cannot be taken
as a basis to conclude it is a statement of all the other workmen. It is for
workmen to individually plead, as the facts differ from each workman, that
they are not in gainful employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
7. He further contended that the Labour Court had not whispered a
word or discussed anything about as to whether the workmen was gainfully
employed or not, or adduced any other reasons for granting full back wages.
However, in one line, simply in view of ordering reinstatement with
continuity of service, had allowed full back wages. It is his further vehement
contention that the writ Court had also not given any specific finding and
considered this issue but simply confirmed the full back wages as per the
award. In this regard, to buttress his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering
Department, Ranchi Vs. Their Workmen, represented by the District
Secretary, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 814.
8. Contending contra, Mr.V.Govardhanan for M/s.Row and Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondent/workmen contended that when once the
Labour Court found that the termination of services of the workmen was the
result of victimisation and an unfair labour practice by the management,
then automatically the workmen is entitled for award of full back wages, as
the management had denied them employment. He further contended that it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
was within the domain and powers of the Labour Court under Section 11(A)
of the I.D. Act and when the Court is satisfied that the order of dismissal
was not justified, while passing the award and setting aside the dismissal, it
can grant such other relief to the workmen as it deems fit.
9. In the instant case, the Labour Court on finding that the order of
termination is only due to victimisation, while setting aside the termination,
had ordered for reinstatement along with back wages. It is his further
contention that when in a case where only the punishment was modified on
the ground of proportionality, the discretion was with the Courts to decide
back wages. But however when the dismissal from service is set aside on
the ground of victimisation or unfair labour practice, then the workmen is
entitled to the full back wages. He further contended that one of the
workmen had examined himself as WW1 which is on behalf of all the other
workmen and in his proof affidavit, he had specifically stated that, since the
date of his termination they are without any employment and they have got
a family to support. When the workmen had pleaded so, the management
had not come forward with any proof to disprove the claim and establish
that the workmen was in gainful employment and denying the liability of
paying back wages. As such the award as confirmed by the writ court for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
payment of full back wages is completely justified and is in consonance
with the provision of the Act.
10. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court;
i. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others, reported in [(2013) 10 SCC
324]
ii. PGI of N.E and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Raj Kumar,
reported in [(2000) Supp (4) SCR 350]
iii. NICKS (India) Tools Vs. Ram Surat and Another, reported
in [(2004) 8 SCC 222]
11. Heard the respective learned counsels and perused the materials
available on record.
12. The short issue that arises in this appeal, is as to whether the
payment of full back wages to the workmen was justified.
13. It is not in dispute that the appellant company is indulged in the
container handling operations at Chennai Port Trust from 2001. It is also not
in dispute that the respondents have joined in the service of the appellant as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
Checker in December 2001. In view of the subsequent developments as
referred earlier, by order dated 21.04.2014 these workmen were terminated
from service. The workmen had raised the industrial dispute contending that
the termination was in contrary to Section 33 of the I.D Act and is in
violation of Section 25G, 25H and 25F of the Act. Pursuant to the order of
reference, the claim of the workmen was taken in I.D.Nos.118, 119,120 and
122 of 2014 and 4 of 2015. Before the Labour Court, G.Bhuvanesh, was
examined as WW1 on the side of the workmen and Exhibits W1 to W189
were marked. 2 witnesses MW1 and MW2 were examined on the side of the
management and Exhibits M1 to M214 were marked. After considering the
evidence, the Labour Court, by a common award dated 27.10.2016, found
that the termination of service was a result of victimization and ordered
reinstatement with continuity of service and also awarded full back wages.
14. A perusal of the award shows that the Labour Court after
analysing all the evidence and finding that the respondents are workmen
within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and finding that the transfer
of workmen and consequential termination are only due to victimisation,
had passed an award, directing reinstatement with continuity in service and
full back wages. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
the appellant/management, the Labour Court had not discussed or rendered
any findings in respect of the award of full back wages. By setting aside the
termination and passing an award ordering reinstatement with continuity of
service, full back wages were awarded without adducing any reasons. The
writ court also while accepting that the respondents are workmen, had
confirmed the award with full back wages.
15. In this regard to support the award of back wages, the learned
counsel for the respondents heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others reported in [(2013) 10 SCC
324], for the proposition that the full back wages awarded by the Labour
Court are fully justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various
decisions in this regard and culled out the principles in paragraph 38 of the
judgment, which is extracted below:
“38. The propositions which can be culled out from the
aforementioned judgments are:
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while
deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or
the Court may take into consideration the length of service of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found
proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition
of the employer and similar other factors.
38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are
terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is
required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she
was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages.
If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that
the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was
getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to
the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law
that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact
lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to
prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that
he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to
specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully
employed and was getting the same or substantially similar
emoluments.
38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal
exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against
the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural
justice and / or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that
the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found
proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back
wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any
misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge,
then there will be ample justification for award of full back
wages.
38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds
that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory
provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty
of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned
Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of
full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not
exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution
and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc.,
merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full
back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The
Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of
wrongful / illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the
employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is
no justification to give premium to the employer of his
wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the
employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
38.6. In a number of cases, the superior Courts have
interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory
authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has
taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties
are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and
manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of
cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It
would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of
time between the termination of his service and finality given
to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind
that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous
position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the
services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the
sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the
luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of
fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the
course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).
38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.
Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman
cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the
ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to
herein above and cannot be treated as good law. This part of
the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement
of an employee/workman.”
16. However in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
P.Karupiah (Dead) through legal representatives vs. General Manager,
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited reported in 2018 (12) SCC
663, it is held that there must be proper pleadings and evidence to show that
the workman was not gainfully employed during the period of non-
employment. Further, in the decision relied on by the appellant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering
Department, Ranchi Vs. Their Workmen reported in (2019) 18 SCC 814,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is necessary for the workmen to
plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from
service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and he had no earning
himself or his family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the
employer is also responsible to prove it otherwise against the employee.
However, the initial burden is on the employee. The workmen without
proving the same, has no right to claim the back wages from his employer as
of right, only because of the Court had set aside the dismissal order and
ordered for reinstatement.
17. In fact, in the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
faulted the High Court for granting the relief simply by relying on para 38
of Deepali Gundu Surwase case, wherein the propositions of the earlier
decision has been culled out. The relevant portion is extracted below;
“10. In our considered opinion, the courts below completely failed
to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of
right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his
dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right
to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the
Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
reinstatement in service.
11. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove
with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he
was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to
maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to
prove it otherwise against the employee. namely, that the employee
was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not
entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the
employee.
12. In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in
its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending
upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the
light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages
are required to be decided.
13. The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several
factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to
record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back
wages and, if so, to what extent.
14. Coming now to the facts of the case at hand, we find that neither
the Labour Court nor the High Court kept in consideration the
aforesaid principles of law. Similarly, no party to the proceedings
either pleaded or adduced any evidence to prove the material facts
required for award of the back wages enabling the Court to award
the back wages.
15. On the other hand, we find that the Labour Court in one line
simply directed the appellant (employer) to pay full back wages for a
long period to 37 workmen while directing their reinstatement in
service.
16. We, however, find that the High Court in para 9 of the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu
Surwase® for holding that the question of back wages is covered by
this decision. In our view, the High Court erred in so observing. It
should have seen that in Deepali Gundu Surwase itself, this Court
referred to decisions, which we have mentioned in para 12 above
and then in para 38 of Deepali Gundu Surwase, this Court culled
out the ratio of all the cited cases. Thereafter, this Court in Deepali
Gundu Surwase cases granted relief to the workers concerned on the
facts involved in that case. In our opinion, the High Court did not
apply the ratio of the decision in Deepali Gundu Surwases to the
facts of this case properly and only quoted one paragraph of the
judgment in Deepali Gundu Surwases which contained general
observations. Those observations had to be read in juxtaposition
with para 38 which culled out the ratio of all the case law on the
subject.
17. We cannot, therefore, concur with such direction of the courts
below awarding full back wages to the workmen which, in our
opinion, has certainly caused prejudice to the appellant (employer).
18. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to
award to these 37 workmen 50% of the total back wages.
19. This we award to the workmen in exercise of our powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing substantial justice
to the parties concerned having reiterated the legal principles which
govern the question of award of back wages.”
18. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring
to all the earlier decisions including Deepali Gundu Surwase case held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
the workmen cannot claim back wages as a right, only because the court had
set aside the dismissal order and ordered for reinstatement, but it is for the
workmen to plead and prove with all evidence that he has not been gainfully
employed.
19. As per the above referred decision in the Management of
Regional Chief Engineer case (cited supra), the Court has to render a
finding as to whether the workmen are entitled for back wages and, if so, to
what extent.
20. Coming to the facts on hand, as discussed above in detail, only
one workmen who had examined himself as WW1 had filed a proof
affidavit, which contains the following one line 'since the date of his
termination we are without any employment and we have got a family to
support'. Except this, which is averred by only one workman, no other
workmen have come forward or chosen to file a statement that they are not
in gainful employment, pursuant to the termination. We have gone through
the deposition containing the cross examination of WW1. When the
workmen have not come forward with pleadings or proof to establish that
they have not been in gainful employment, the management had also not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
taken any efforts to prove it otherwise against the employee to show that
they have been gainfully employed during the relevant period. The
management had not even raised the suggestion with the witness in respect
of gainful employment. As like the facts as in the case of Management of
Regional Chief Engineer (cited supra), no party to the proceedings had
either pleaded or adduced any evidence to prove the material facts required,
to enable the Court to award back wages as has been referred to in
paragraph 14 of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, except
for the one line in the proof affidavit, and that too by only one workman.
21. When no pleadings were available and no materials were placed
on either side, the Labour Court went ahead and granted full back wages.
The Labour Court has not recorded any findings as to whether it is a fit case
or on what basis full back wages were awarded. The writ Court, while
confirming the award, also did not render any findings regarding the
eligibility or whether it was fit to award full back wages.
22. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondents/workmen in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited is regarding
the award of full back wages and the decision in the PGI of N.E. and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
Research case deals with the extent to which the High Court can interfere
with the award of the Labour Court. The decision in the NICKS (India)
Tools case also deals with the interference of the writ court concerning the
award of full back wages. However, all the decisions regarding award of
back wages including the Deepali Gundu Surwase case, have been
considered and taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Management of Regional Chief Engineer case, where it is held that the
workmen has to plead and prove with the aid of evidence regarding not in
gainful employment, for awarding back wages. Therefore, the decisions
relied on by the respondents do not enure to their benefit.
23. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, where the statement of one workman on behalf of others is alone
available and neither party has pleaded nor proved their case, in respect of
gainful employment and where both the Labour Court and the writ court
have awarded full back wages, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of
justice, to modify the award and order of the writ court in so far as awarding
full back wages, instead by awarding 50% of the back wages. In all other
aspects, the award stands confirmed and the directions as directed by the
writ court shall be complied with following the same timelines, from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24. With these observations and directions, the writ appeal stands
partly allowed. No order as costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
02.04.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
ak
To
The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
ak
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 03:42:19 pm )
