Madras High Court
The Management vs L. Murugaian on 16 April, 2025
W.P.No.7287 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
DATED : 16.04.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P.No.7287 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No. 7789 of 2021
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Ltd.,
37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore – 641 043. … Petitioner
Vs.
L. Murugaian,
Son of Mr.Lakshmana Gowdar,
D.No.6/53-K Kovai Road,
Kumaran Kundru, 1-Vadavalli Post,
Pugalur Via, Pallipalayam Village,
Mettupalayam Taluk,
Coimbatore – 641 697. … Respondent
Prayer in W.P.No. 7287 of 2021
To issue a writ or direction particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari
calling for the records relating to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the
Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.No.85 of 2016 and to quash the
same and pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.P.No.7287 of 2021
and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP.No. 7789 of 2021
To grant an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in C.P.No.85 of
2016 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore dated
15.07.2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : Mr. A.sundaravadhanan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Krishnasamy
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., challenging the order dated 15.07.2019
passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P. No. 85 of 2016.
The respondent, a retired employee who had served as a Conductor, filed the
computation petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, claiming an amount of Rs. 4,28,783.60 under various heads, namely
earned leave wages, incentive, social security scheme dues, and refund of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
security deposit.
3. According to the Management, substantial payments had already been
made to the respondent—Rs.1,60,726/- towards earned leave encashment
and Rs. 45,724/- under the Social Security Scheme—and the balance claims
were either unjustified or non-maintainable. It was specifically contended
that the respondent was not eligible for the incentive of Rs.1,500/- per
month, as he was not permanently re-designated as a Clerk but only deputed
to clerical work. It was further contended that the Labour Court wrongly
entertained the petition since the claims involved disputed entitlements and
could not be maintained under Section 33C(2), which is limited to pre-
existing rights. The direction to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs and 6% interest was
also challenged as excessive and unjustified.
4. The petitioner seeks to quash the Labour Court’s order insofar as it
directs payment of Rs.38,500/- with interest and cost, and requests this
Court to set aside the same as being legally untenable and beyond the scope
of computation under Section 33C(2) I.D. Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
5. A perusal of records shows that the Labour Court recorded that the
Management had paid Rs.1,60,726/- towards earned leave encashment to
the respondent only during the pendency of the proceedings before the
Court. Since the amount was not paid at the time of retirement but only after
the computation petition was filed, the Court took note of the belated
payment, but did not pass any further direction for payment under that head,
as the claim stood settled. Thus, the Labour Court accepted that the earned
leave wages had been paid, though belatedly, and did not include it in the
final amount awarded for computation.
6. As regards the incentive claim, the Labour Court has observed that the
respondent in his averments had stated that he was appointed as a
Conductor on 13.07.1992 in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Ltd and since his physical condition was not good, he was
deputed to clerical duties in the Accounts Section at the Mettupalayam
Branch from 15.06.2012 and continued in that role until his retirement on
30.06.2015. He claimed that during this period, other employees similarly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
deputed to clerical work were paid an incentive of Rs. 1,500/- per month,
and he was therefore entitled to the same.
7. The Management denied the claim on the ground that the respondent
was never permanently re-designated as a clerk. However, during the cross-
examination of MW1, the Management’s witness admitted that employees
deputed to clerical work were paid Rs.1,000/- per month as incentive and
the relevant portion reads as follows;
“...nkw;go fhyfl;lj;jpy; mYtyf gzpahsu;fSf;F ruhrupahf
khjhe;jpu cCf;fj;bjhif U:/1500-? tH';fg;gl;lJ vd;why; ,y;iy.
Rkhu; U:/1000-? mstpy;jhd; Cf;fj;bjhif tH';fg;gl;lJ///”
8. The Labour Court held that, based on the admission made by MW1
during cross-examination that employees performing clerical duties were
paid an incentive of Rs.1,000/- per month, and considering that the
petitioner had in fact been deputed to such clerical work, the petitioner was
entitled to receive the said incentive. The finding of the Labour Court is
well-supported by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any
perversity. It is a settled principle that when an employee is assigned duties
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
outside the scope of their original appointment and performs such functions
continuously, they are entitled to be compensated on par with others
similarly placed. In the present case, the respondent was deputed to clerical
duties for a defined period and performed such functions until retirement.
The admission by the Management’s own witness that clerical staff were
paid Rs. 1,000/- per month as incentive lends credence to the respondent’s
claim. In the absence of any specific policy or rule excluding deputed
employees from such benefit, the Labour Court rightly extended the same
treatment to the respondent based on the principle of equal pay for equal
work and parity of treatment among similarly situated employees. The
finding, therefore, warrants no interference.
9. As regards the security deposit, the respondent claimed that a sum of
Rs. 3,000/- was recovered from him at the time of joining service and the
same had not been refunded upon his retirement. The Management, in its
counter, did not deny this specific claim and did not produce any
documentary evidence to show that the amount had been refunded. The
Labour Court noted the absence of rebuttal or proof from the Management
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
and accepted the respondent’s version. Accordingly, it directed the
Management to refund Rs.3,000/- towards the security deposit.
10. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the Labour Court with
respect to the claims for incentive, social security scheme amount, refund of
security deposit, and earned leave are well-reasoned and supported by
evidence, and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, considering that the
Management had paid a substantial portion of the dues during the pendency
of the proceedings, and that the dispute largely turned on interpretation and
lack of documentation rather than deliberate default, this Court is of the
view that the direction to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- may be set aside to meet
the ends of justice.
11. Further, although learned counsel for the petitioner sought relief from
the cost imposed by the Labour Court, it is well settled that costs follow the
event, and this Court has already confirmed the award of the Labour Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
It is also settled that no separate appeal lies solely against an order as to
costs. However, Mr. Ajay Ghosh, learned counsel for the workman, has
fairly submitted that his client would not press for recovery of the said
amount. This statement is recorded.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, and the impugned
order is confirmed in all respects, except to the extent it directs payment of
costs of Rs.2,000/-, which shall stand set aside. There shall be no order as to
costs in this writ petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
16.04.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Additional Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
DR. A.D.MARIA CLETE, J
ay
and
16.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
