Madras High Court
J.Venkataraman vs The Management on 27 June, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD)No.28044 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.28044 of 2022
J.Venkataraman ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Management,
A-1449, Madurai Coats Thozhilalar
Co-operative Stores Limited,
No.3, Arappalayam Cross Road,
Ponnagaram, Madurai-625 016. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Madurai in C.P.No.48 of 2017, dated 19.06.2019 and quash the
same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal
basis and consequently directing the respondent to provide a sum of
Rs.73,380.50 towards lorry rent, loading and unloading charges of paddy bags
to the petitioner with accrued interest and pass such further or other orders as
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:44 pm )
W.P(MD)No.28044 of 2022
For Respondent : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the workman of the
respondent Co-operative Society challenging the order passed by the Labour
Court, Madurai in C.P.No.48 of 2017, dismissing the computation petition.
2. The petitioner, who was working as a Salesman in the respondent
Society was given certain amount as advance for the purpose of procurement of
paddy and for transportation of the same. It is the allegation of the Management
that, after expending from the said advance amount, a balance of
Rs.82,542.44/- was illegally retained by the workman. Therefore, the
Management has issued a charge memo on 25.04.2006. The petitioner has
submitted his reply on 05.05.2006, 19.05.2006 and on 09.08.2006. Not being
satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondent
Management has proceeded to pass recovery orders on various dates. These
recovery orders were implemented by recovering the amount from the salary of
the writ petitioner. The petitioner has attained superannuation on 30.06.2009.
Thereafter, the present claim petition has been filed in the year 2017 alleging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:44 pm )
that these recoveries are bad in the eye of law and the said amount has to be
paid by the Management to the workman.
3. The Labour Court after considering the submissions made on either
side, after relying upon various judgments, has arrived at a finding that the
petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not
maintainable, in view of the fact that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate a
dispute with regard to the entitlement or basis of claim of a workman.
Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
though vouchers have been produced by the writ petitioner indicating the fact
of expenses meted out by him from the advance amount, without considering
those vouchers, illegally recovery orders have been passed. When he was about
to retire, the entire amount was recovered from him and therefore, he could not
object to the same. Since the recovery orders are illegal, he had filed a claim
petition before the Labour Court. He further contended that there is no dispute
with regard to the quantum of wages and hence, the deduction from the wages
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:44 pm )
are illegal and therefore, the invocation of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act is legal.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Society
submitted that the petitioner herein has accepted the recovery orders and has
given an undertaking letter on 09.08.2006 agreeing to deduct those amounts
from his wages. In case, if the deductions from the wages are not in accordance
with law, the petitioner cannot invoke Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act that has to approach the authorities under a different enactment. Hence, she
contended that the Labour Court has rightly held that, a computation petition
under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The facts narrated above will clearly indicate that recovery orders have
been passed from the salary of the writ petitioner in the year 2006, 2007 and
2008. Based upon these recovery orders, the recovery has already been effected
from the salary of the writ petitioner. In case, if the recovery from the wages are
illegal, the petitioner has to approach the authorities under the Payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:44 pm )
Wages Act. In such circumstances, when the entitlement of the writ petitioner
to the said amount is under dispute, the Labour Court cannot invoke its
jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is akin
to the execution proceedings. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly arrived at
a finding that the computation petition initiated by the writ petitioner is not
maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition.
This writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act, if he is so advised.
There shall be no order as to costs.
27.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
The Management,
A-1449, Madurai Coats Thozhilalar
Co-operative Stores Limited,
No.3, Arappalayam Cross Road,
Ponnagaram, Madurai-625 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:44 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
BTR
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:44 pm )
