Madras High Court
K.Murugesan vs The Management on 2 April, 2025
W.P. No.4828 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 04.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 4828 of 2020
K.Murugesan,
S/o. Mr.P.Kuppan
Kodivalli Village,
Eluppur Post,
Tiruttani Taluk,
Thriuvallur District.
Pin code: 631 204 …Petitioner
Vs.
The Management
Indian Furniture Products Limited,
No.G-106, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Kakkalur, Thiruvallur District
Pin Code : 602 003. …. Respondent
Prayer in W.P
To issue an order or direction or writ and in particular writ of
certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the Presiding Officer,
II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai pertaining to its order dated 11.04.2014
made in I.D.No.8 of 2006 and quash the same and consequently directing
the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and
back wages and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
W.P. No.4828 of 2020
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : M/s. C.Venkatesan and E.Chandran, Advocates
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The writ petition has been filed by the workman challenging the award
passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 8 of 2006,
dated 11.04.2014. By the impugned award, the Labour Court held that
the petitioner had not established that he was a regular workman and
found that he was only a trainee, thereby holding him ineligible for any
relief.
3. The petitioner did not challenge the said award within a
reasonable time. On the contrary, he contends that he had tendered
evidence before the Labour Court and that the matter was posted for
arguments. According to him, his counsel had informed him to appear on
the date fixed for arguments, i.e., 11.04.2014. However, on that day, his
mother fell ill and required hospitalization, and he was compelled to take
care of her for the next four years. He claims that due to these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
circumstances, he was unable to pursue his dispute. His mother
ultimately passed away on 02.11.2017.
4.Subsequently, when the petitioner approached his counsel, he was
informed that the case had been dismissed for default on 11.04.2014 due
to non-advancement of arguments. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.
No. 279 of 2017 in I.D. No. 8 of 2006, seeking condonation of a delay of
1261 days for restoration of the industrial dispute which had been
dismissed for default on 11.04.2014. Notice was ordered on the said
application, and the respondent filed a counter contending that the
petitioner had failed to explain the delay on a day-to-day basis. It was
further submitted that the delay, being over four years, was not bona fide
and deserved to be rejected.
5. The Labour Court dismissed I.A. No. 279 of 2017, holding that
the application lacked bona fides. Upon a perusal of the case records, it
was found that when the matter was posted for arguments, neither the
petitioner nor his counsel advanced any submissions. Consequently,
following a full trial, the award was passed on 11.04.2014. The Labour
Court also noted that no hearing was scheduled on 11.04.2018, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
claimed by the petitioner. It further held that if the petitioner was
aggrieved by the award, the appropriate course was to challenge it in
accordance with law, and the question of restoring the industrial dispute
on file did not arise.
6. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. No. 24910 of 2018 before
this Court, challenging the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Labour
Court in I.A. No. 279 of 2017. This Court disposed of the writ petition by
order dated 24.01.2020, with the following observations: –
“Considering the fact that the petitioner presumed it as an
exparte award was passed and filed the above I.A. and the
said I.A. was dismissed on 08.11.2017 and the present writ
petition is filed on 17.09.2018 and further considering the
fact that the award was passed on merits, this Court is of
the view that it is for the petitioner to challenge the said
award in a manner known to law. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner
to challenge the said award dated 11.04.2014 made in
I.D.No.8/2006 before the appropriate forum. No costs.”
7. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the present writ petition came
to be filed. The petitioner had earlier raised an industrial dispute under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, through his letter dated 03.06.2005
(Ex.W9). The management filed its reply statement dated 04.08.2005
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
(Ex.W10), to which the petitioner submitted a rejoinder dated 29.08.2005
(Ex.W11). As the Conciliation Officer was unable to effect a settlement,
he submitted a failure report dated 10.10.2005 (Ex.W12).
8.Based on the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before
the II Additional Labour Court on 03.06.2006. The dispute was taken on
file as I.D. No. 8 of 2006, and notice was ordered to the respondent. In
response, the respondent filed a detailed counter statement dated
01.06.2007. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as
WW1 and marked 12 documents on his side, which were exhibited as
Ex.W1 to Ex.W12. On behalf of the respondent, one S. Palani was
examined as MW1, and 17 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M1
to Ex.M17.
9. Upon analyzing the evidence on record, the Labour Court
concluded that the petitioner was only a trainee. In paragraph 11 of the
award dated 11.04.2014, it was noted that the petitioner himself had
admitted to having worked as a temporary employee and that he was
engaged as a trainee from 11.06.2002 to 28.02.2005. Ex.M17, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
appointment order, confirmed his engagement as a trainee with a stipend
of Rs. 2,017/-. The Labour Court further observed that no amount other
than the stipend was paid to him, which was also admitted by the
petitioner during his cross-examination as WW1.
10. The Labour Court further held that the management had
imported sophisticated computerized machinery, which required
operation by skilled and permanent workers. It found that only such
skilled permanent operators were entrusted with handling those
machines, whereas trainees were engaged solely for assembling the
manufactured furniture at the locations specified by the customers. The
Labour Court also observed that Ex.M17 clearly indicated the duration of
the training period, and Clause 12 of the said document explicitly stated
that there was no assurance of employment upon completion of the
training.
11. Before the Labour Court, the management placed reliance
on the following judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court:–
1.2001 (1) LLJ 1346 (SC)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
2.1996 I LLJ 888 (SC)
3.12998-III LLJ 666 (SC)
4.2004 II LLJ 626 Madras High Court
12. The Labour Court concurred with the reasoning set out in the
aforesaid judgments. In light of the fact that the petitioner was appointed
only as a trainee and there was no assurance of employment upon
completion of the training period, the Labour Court declined to grant any
relief to the petitioner.
13. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award
passed by the Labour Court. Although the petitioner was granted liberty
to challenge the award after a delay of four years and ultimately filed the
present writ petition after a lapse of six years, this Court finds no
infirmity in the findings rendered by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the
writ petition in W.P. No. 4828 of 2020 stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
02.04.2025
ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court
Chennai.
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 04:35:25 pm )
