Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport vs The Presiding Officer on 23 January, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
and
WP.MP.No.42180/2004 & WMP.No.16092/2017
W.P.No.34958 of 2004
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd
Rep.by its Managing Director
Salem. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Salem.
2.V.Marimuthu ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to all for the records of the first respondent in
I.D.No.467 of 2002 dated 07.01.2004 and quash the same.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aswin
For Respondents : Labour Court for R1
Ms.S.Girija for R2
W.P.No.14847 of 2017
V.Marimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Rep.by its Managing Director
(Salem) Limited
12, Ramakrishna Road
Salem 636 007.
2.The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Salem Division -1) Ltd
12, Ramakrishna Road
Salem 636 007. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected
with the orders dated 24.02.2005, passed by the second respondent in
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
Proc.No.E1/5107/TNSTC (Salem)/2005 appointing the petitioner as
Conductor as new entrant, quash the same and also, direct the respondent to
grant the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits
for being eligible for pension by duly implementing the award of the Labour
Court, Salem, in I.D.No.467 of 2002 dated 07.01.2004 in full letter & spirit.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Girija
For Respondents : Mr.M.Aswin for R1 & R2
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions are connected to each other and as such are
taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Writ Petition No.34958 of 2004 is filed challenging the
award of the Labour Court dated 07.01.2004 in I.D.No.467 of 2002.
3. The factual back ground in which the Writ Petition arises is
that the Workman namely V.Marimuthu was working as a Conductor in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
Management of Tamil Nadu State Corporation. While so, he remained
unauthorisedly absent and charge memo was issued to him on 06.12.2000.
His explanation was not accepted. Domestic enquiry was conducted and after
taking into account his past records of service also he was dismissed from
service on 20.02.2001. The workman raised a dispute. Conciliation failed. His
claim was taken on file as ID.No.467 of 2002. After considering the case of
the parties and the evidence on record the Labour Court held that the
punishment was unjustified. The Labour Court set aside the punishment and
ordered reinstatement of the Workman without backwages or other benefits
but only with continuity of service. The management has challenged the said
award by way of this present Writ Petition in W.P.No.34958 of 2004.
4. Pending the Writ Petition, the Workman and the management
entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
on 16.02.2005 whereby it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner
V.Marimuthu will be reinstated into service as a fresh entrant as Conductor.
The Workman agreed not to claim the continuity of service and further will
not claim 17B wages as ordered by this Court in the present Writ Petition in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
W.P.No.34958 of 2004. It was also further agreed that the Workman will not
claim any remedy whatsoever, in this regard by way of appeal in the High
Court or other legal forum. It was further agreed by the Workman that he will
not claim any monetary benefits on the future dates. It is stated that pursuant
to the settlement, the Workman was taken as a Conductor, as a fresh entrant
on 04.03.2005 and he is working. Therefore, even thereafter also the
Workman was absent from duty for 1645 days from 01.03.2006 to
31.10.2007. However, he is working continuously from the said date
onwards.
5. Under the said circumstances when the management has given
up his right to challenge its award and entered into a settlement with the
workman under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, pending the
Writ Petition and both sides having agreed to settle the issue, the prayer in the
Writ Petition in W.P.No.34958 of 2004 is no more sustainable and the petition
is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. While so the second
Writ Petition is filed in the year 2017. The claim of the Workman in
WP.No.14847 of 2017 is that he agreed to be reinstated as a fresh entrant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
thinking that it was a temporary arrangement pending the earlier Writ
Petition. Therefore the order dated 24.02.2005 appointing the petitioner as a
new entrant has to be quashed and the petitioner should be deemed to be in
service with all continuity of service as ordered in ID.No.467 of 2002 dated
07.01.2004.
6. At the outset, it can be seen that in the Writ Petition the 18(1)
settlement is not mentioned. When the Workman having eyes wide open
entered into a settlement under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
and have signed the proceedings and have joined service in the year 2005 and
having worked all along, the Writ Petition which is filed in the year 2017,
after a period of 12 years cannot be entertained and parties cannot wriggle out
of the solemn settlements entered under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. I do not see any ground to accept the case of the Workman that
he did not know that it was a permanent arrangement and he thought that it
was only a temporary arrangement. On the contrary, 18(1) settlement is very
clear and categorical as well as the order given to the Workman is also very
clear and categorical. He has not also come to the Court immediately
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
thereafter and further, it can be seen that after the second opportunity was
given he was again unauthorisedly absent for another 1645 days. However,
when a lenient view was taken by the management and further opportunities
are granted to the Workman, he was working quietly all along till the year
2017 and Writ Petition is belatedly filed. Therefore, both on merits and also
on the ground of latches, I am of the view that the prayer of the Workman
cannot be acceded to.
7. In view thereof, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on the
following terms;
(i) WP.No.34958 of 2004 is dismissed as having
become infructuous;
(ii) W.P.No.14847 of 2017 shall stand dismissed.
No costs Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
23.01.2025
Neutral Citation : No
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
To
1.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Salem.
2. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd
Rep.by its Managing Director
Salem.
3.The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Salem Division -1) Ltd
12, Ramakrishna Road
Salem 636 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
dna
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
and
WP.MP.No.42180/2004 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34958/2004 & 14847/2017
23.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
