Madras High Court
The Management Of vs P.Rajarajan on 12 March, 2025
W.P. No. 18258 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON 02242025
PRONOUNCED ON 12/03/2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. No.18258 of 2020
and
W.M.P. No. 22641 of 2020
The Management of
Frontier Knitters
18-A, Goundampalayam Road,
Rayarpalayam,
Palladam 641 664
Tiruppur District.
Rep. by its Managing Director ... Petitioner
Vs.
P.Rajarajan,
S/o. Palanisamy,
No.3/127, Salavanaicken patty,
V. Velur Post, Udumapet Taluk,
Tiruppur District. …Respondent
Prayer in W.P.No.18258 of 2020:
To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of Additional Labour
Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.29 of 2014 and quash its award dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
1/13
W.P. No. 18258 of 2020
10.03.2020 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Prayer in W.M.P.NO.22641 of 2020
To grant Interim Stay of the award of the Additional Labour Court,
Coimbatore dated 10th March 2020 in I.D.No. 29 of 2014, pending
disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such further or other orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner: Mr. Haroon AL Rasheed, Advocate
for T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocates
For Respondent: Mr. Ma.P. Thangavel, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The petitioner, representing the management, has filed the present
writ petition challenging the Award dated 10.03.2020, passed by the
Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 29 of 2014. By the
impugned award, the Labour Court held that the oral termination of the
respondent workman on 07.07.2011 was unsustainable. Consequently, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
directed the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service
from 2006, to be implemented within one month from the date the award
takes effect. Regarding back wages, the Labour Court awarded 25% of
the back wages to the respondent.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 11.12.2020. Pending its
disposal, an interim stay on the operation of the award was granted on the
same day in WMP No. 22641 of 2020. Upon receiving notice from this
Court, the respondent entered an appearance through counsel. When the
matter was listed on 27.06.2024, this Court recorded the following:
“2. The learned counsel for the petitioner after getting
instructions from his client reported to this Court that the
petitioner management is willing to re instate the
respondent in Vijayamangalam and Kangeyam units.
3. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the respondent is willing to be re instated
only in the Frontier Knitters, Palladam, Tiruppur District.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Frontier Knitters, Palladam, Tiruppur District, has already
been closed as per 12 (3) Settlement dated 19.04.2012.
5. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has
contradicted the same and has filed certain photocopy of
pictures stating that the said unit is not closed and still
working.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to get
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
instructions from his client as to whether the Frontier
Knitters, Palladam, Tiruppur District is working or not.”
4. After hearing the arguments in this matter, the counsel for the
petitioner circulated an affidavit sworn by P. Chacko Mathew, Manager of
the Company, dated 25.02.2025, after duly serving a copy on the
respondent’s counsel. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the affidavit, the following
averments were made:
“I state that as early as 19.04.2012, the Petitioner company
namely the ‘D’ unit at Palladam was closed owing to business
reasons and settled all its workmen who were in the rolls of the
Company. The same was also brought to the notice of the
Labour Court in the dispute. The Hon’ble Labour Court has
also taken note of the same and the same fact was also
admitted by the Respondent. Despite the same the Labour
Court has granted the relief of reinstatement.
2.I state that when the Writ Petition was filed before this
Hon’ble Court given the order of reinstatement passed by the
Labour Court, the Petitioner agreed to reinstate the
Respondent in one of its units at Vijayamangalam near Erode.
However, for the reasons best known the Respondent did not
accept the said offer and was only insisting on working in the
Palladam unit which ha since been outsourced much after the
activities were discontinued. Further this Affidavit is also filed
to place on record that the Respondent has been working with
one M/s. Palani Andavar Coton mills at Udumalpet. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
above aspects were also placed before this Hon’ble Court
during the course of submission which took place on
24.02.2025. Hence the relief of reinstatement granted to the
Respondent in view of settlement dated 19.04.2012 coupled
with the fact that the Respondent is also employed in the mill
aforestated cannot survive any longer and the award should
be set aside or modified in view of the settlement as well as
subsequent employment of the respondent.”
5. The respondent’s case was that he had been employed with the
petitioner company since 01.01.2006. However, despite this, the
management began deducting ESI and PF contributions only from
January 2010. On 05.07.2011, when the respondent reported for work, he
was denied entry into the factory. He was asked to return on 07.07.2011,
and on that day, he was informed that his services had been terminated.
The security guards at the gate forcibly removed him from the premises.
Consequently, he raised an industrial dispute before the Government
Labour Officer in Coimbatore through a petition dated 25.11.2011.
However, during that period, the districts of Coimbatore and Tiruppur
were bifurcated, and a new Labour Officer was appointed in Tiruppur. As
a result, his case was transferred to the Tiruppur Labour Officer.
6. Due to delays in the conciliation proceedings, the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
approached the Payment of Wages Authority, Coimbatore, seeking unpaid
wages. His claim, registered as PW58/2012, was ultimately rejected by
the authority on 16.05.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner management filed
a counter statement before the Labour Officer on 29.10.2012. As the
Labour Officer was unable to facilitate a settlement, a failure report was
issued on 04.06.2013. Based on this failure report, the workman filed a
claim statement before the Labour Court on 03.06.2014.
7. The dispute was taken on file as I.D. No. 29/2014 by the
Labour Court, which ordered notice to the petitioner management. In
response, the petitioner management filed a counter statement dated
18.12.2014, wherein it contended that there was no termination of the
respondent workman and that it was the respondent who had stopped
reporting to work after 04.07.2011. The petitioner further stated that the
respondent had initially joined the company on 01.11.2006 but had
resigned through a letter dated 21.10.2008, following which his dues were
settled. Subsequently, in November 2009, the respondent again
approached the management for casual work and was engaged as a casual
labourer. His services were later confirmed in February 2010, at which
point ESI and PF benefits were extended to him. Therefore, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
asserted that the respondent’s claim of continuous employment since 2006
was factually incorrect.
8. Before the Labour Court, the respondent examined himself and
two other witnesses, who were marked as WW1 to WW3, and submitted
25 documents, which were marked as Ex.W1 to Ex.W25. On behalf of the
petitioner management, the Manager, Chacko Mathew, was examined as
MW1, and six documents were submitted, marked as Ex.M1 to Ex.M6.
The Labour Court framed five points for determination. On the first point,
it held that the dispute regarding the alleged illegal oral termination of the
respondent's employment on 07.07.2011 was not valid.
9. The Labour Court found that the attendance register (Ex.M2)
was incomplete, as the entire register had not been produced. It held that
merely submitting two months’ attendance records was insufficient to
substantiate the allegation of unauthorized absenteeism. In the absence of
a complete record, the court concluded that the workman had established
that he was orally terminated on 07.07.2011. The burden, therefore, was
on the petitioner to disprove this claim. Furthermore, MW1, the
management’s witness, admitted that no disciplinary action had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
initiated against the workman. The court observed that if the workman
had indeed been absent without authorization, disciplinary proceedings
would have been taken. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence
showing that a letter had been sent to the workman instructing him to
resume duty.
10. Even during the proceedings before the Labour Officer, the
management did not extend any offer for reinstatement. In fact, MW1, in
his proof affidavit, stated that the management was facing a crisis and was
unable to provide employment. Given this critical situation, a settlement
dated 19.04.2012 under Section 12(3) was entered into, marked as
Ex.W10. This created a presumption in favor of the workman, as at that
time, all other workmen had resigned and settled their accounts.
Consequently, the Labour Court concluded that the allegation of
absenteeism on the part of the workman was not substantiated.
11. Regarding the second point on the maintainability of the dispute
under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court held
that since the non-employment of the workman was brought about by the
management, the dispute was maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
12. On the third point, the court found that there was no valid
resignation by the workman on 21.10.2008, nor had he settled his
accounts on 22.10.2008, as claimed by the management. Consequently, it
held that the workman had been in continuous employment since 2006.
13. As for the fourth and fifth points, which pertained to the reliefs
the workman was entitled to, the court observed that the petitioner had not
followed the prescribed procedure under the certified standing orders
(Ex.W9). Given this, the court treated the case as one of termination
without due process, particularly for failing to comply with Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this basis, the Labour Court concluded
that the oral termination was illegal.
14. However, regarding back wages, the Labour Court found that the
workman had not sufficiently established that he was not gainfully
employed during the period of non-employment. Consequently, it
declined to grant full back wages and instead restricted the relief to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
reinstatement with continuity of service from 2006, along with back
wages at the rate of 25%.
15. The present contention that the company’s Unit D at Palladam
was closed due to business reasons on 19.04.2012 and that no relief
should have been granted by the Labour Court is noted. However, since
the management had agreed to reinstate the workman at one of its units in
Vijayamangalam, Erode, and considering that he was found to be
gainfully employed—an argument presented during the proceedings—this
aspect should also be taken into account.
16. The management's final submission that the workman was
gainfully employed elsewhere cannot be accepted, as this claim was
neither pleaded nor proved before this Court or the Labour Court.
Furthermore, the contention that employment was offered in another unit
also does not stand to reason as the unit was located in a different
district, and no such offer was made at the time of termination. The
question of whether the unit was factually closed on 19.04.2012 was
never raised as an issue before the Labour Court, and the management
cannot introduce this argument at this stage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
17. The Labour Court had clearly established that the oral
termination of the workman was proved, while rejecting the
management's claim that the workman had failed to report for duty from
05.07.2011. As this is a finding of fact based on evidence, it cannot be
interfered with in this writ petition.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the impugned award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ
petition in W.P. No. 18258 of 2020 stands dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 22641 of 2020 is also
closed.
12.03.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
Coimbatore.
(with records if any)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
12.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:35:22 pm )
