Madras High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs The Presiding Officer on 25 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.625 OF 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.625 of 2020 IN
C.M.P.(MD)No.3960 of 2020
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board,
Maintenance Sub Division,
Paramakudi,
Ramnad District.
2. The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai. ... Appellants / Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
2. Lakshmanan ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
to set aside the order dated 20.03.2019 passed in W.P.(MD)No.14057
of 2011 on the file of this Court.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
2 W.A.(MD)NO.625 OF 2020
For Appellants : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by,
Mr.R.Satheesh.
For R-2 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
***
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the
learned Standing counsel appearing for TWAD Board and the learned
counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2. Lakshmanan, second respondent herein was working as a
daily wager in TWAD Board from 11.08.1995 till 10.09.1995 and on a
contract basis from 19.09.1995 to 31.07.1997. He was then orally
disengaged. Lakshmanan raised an Industrial Dispute before the
Labour Court, Madurai. The Labour Court took cognizance of the
same in I.D.No.43 of 2008. Lakshmanan examined himself as P.W.1.
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked on his side. On the side of the
management, one Sathiyamoorthy was examined. No documentary
evidence was adduced by them. After considering the entire evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai vide order
dated 07.06.2011 granted relief in the following terms:-
“9. In the result, the non-employment of the
petitioner is not justified. The 1st respondent is
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service
with continuity of service within 3 months from
the date of receipt of this order but without
backwages and other benefits. No cost. The
second respondent is directed to give
instructions to the 1st respondent.”
3. Aggrieved by the same, the management of TWAD Board
filed W.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2011. The learned single Judge vide order
dated 20.03.2019 dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same,
this writ appeal came to be filed.
4. In the counter filed before the Labour Court, the
management had taken a stand that Lakshmanan was employed only
as a contract labour. In other words, according to them, Lakshmanan
was not directly paid by TWAD Board. He was paid only by the
contractor on outsourcing basis. In fact, Ex.P.1 marked by
Lakshmanan before the Labour Court confirms the stand taken by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
management. In the said statement, Lakshmanan has been described
as a watchman employed on a labour contract basis.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner drew
our attention to the order dated 07.02.2018 made in W.P.(MD)
Nos.13054 and 1410 of 2014 and the order dated 29.11.2018 made
in W.P.(MD)No.17082 of 2015 etc., batch. These orders were
pronounced by one of us (G.R.S.J.,) and it was held that when TWAD
Board is not having any employer's license under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, any contract labour
engaged by them would have to be construed only as a direct
employee of the Board. In fact, it appears that accepting this
proposition, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by
the TWAD Board.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General draws our
attention to the order dated 12.04.2021 made in Special Leave to
Appeal(C)Nos.5051-5053 of 2021 (The Executive Engineer TWAD
Board & Ors. V. V.K.Mariyappan). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
SLPs filed by TWAD Board against orders made in the aforesaid writ
petitions, has granted an interim order of status quo. Therefore, one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
may not be justified in placing reliance on the aforesaid earlier orders
relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
7. Even though the case of the management appears to be a
little weak, quite a few features highlighted by the learned Additional
Advocate General will have to be taken note of. Admittedly, the
second respondent herein was only employed as an NMR. In other
words, he was on daily wages. For the period worked in TWAD Board,
he was paid only on outsourcing basis through labour contractor.
Even according to Lakshmanan, he was disengaged way back on
21.08.1997. But he raised an industrial dispute only in October 2007.
In other words, Lakshmanan approached the Labour Court after a
lapse of 11 years. We are now in March 2025. Thus for full 28 years,
there was no direct employer-employee relationship between TWAD
Board and the second respondent. It would be little too much to call
upon TWAD Board to reinstate Lakshmanan at this point of time.
That apart, the outcome of SLP(C)Nos.5051-5053 of 2021 that is
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court may have a bearing on
this case also. We are of the view that it'll not be equitable to order
reinstatement. In such cases, it'd be appropriate to award lump-sum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
amount to the workman. When we proposed the same, the learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that the TWAD Board will
pay a lump sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to
Lakshmanan within a period of three months to give a quietus to the
issue. In view of the said submission, even while setting aside the
order impugned in the writ appeal, we direct the appellant
management to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the second respondent
herein towards full and final settlement of all his claims. This writ
appeal is disposed of on these terms. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
25th March 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
To:
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:56:42 am )
