Madras High Court
The General Secretary vs K.Ethiraj on 29 May, 2025
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 17.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 6478 & 6480 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No. 7057 of 2021
The General Secretary,
Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Thanikachalam Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017. ...Petitioner in both Wps
Vs.
K.Ethiraj
No.2, New Boag Road,
Lalithapuram,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017. …Respondent in both Wps
Prayer in W.P.No.6478 of 2021
To issue appropriate writs, orders or directions more particularly a writ in the
nature of Certiorari, calling for the concerned records from the II Additional
Labour Court and quash the order of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai
in C.P.No.195 of 2016 dated 08.01.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to
law, and pass such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
fit in the circumstances of the case, award cost.
Prayer in W.P.No. 6480 of 2021
To issue appropriate writs, orders or directions more particularly a writ in the
nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the
II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in Sr.No. 143 of 2021 in unnumbered
I.A.in C.P.No.195 of 2016 dated 22.01.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to
law and consequently direct the II Additional Labour Court to number the
I.A.Sr.No.143 of 2021 to set aside the ex parte order in C.P.No. 195 of 2016
dated 8.1.2021 and decide the petition on its merits and in accordance with law
and pass orders on the same, and pass such other orders or directions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, award cost and
render justice.
Prayer in W.M.P. No.7057 of 2021 ( in W.P.No. 6478 of 2021)
To stay the operation of the order of the II Additional Labour Court Chennai
dated 8.1.2021 in C.P.No. 195 of 2016 pending disposal of the writ petition
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner: M/s.Balan Haridas and R.Kamatchi Sundaresan, Advocates
For Respondent: M/s. B.L.Jayakandan and T.Pushpavathi, Advocates
JUDGEMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
Heard.
2.The petitioner in both writ petitions is the same organization, and the
contesting respondent is also common to both cases. In the first writ petition,
the petitioner challenges the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the II Additional
Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 195 of 2016, whereby the Labour Court
allowed the claim made by the contesting respondent and directed the petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs.5,97,307/-, along with costs of Rs.50,000/-.
3.The petitioner contended that the hearing in the claim petition was
unilaterally closed on 24.11.2020, and after hearing the arguments of the
respondent on 15.12.2020, the Labour Court erroneously recorded that the
petitioner had also argued the matter on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, the Labour
Court proceeded to pass final orders in the claim petition on 08.01.2021.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed I.A. No. ___ of 2021 (SR No. 143/2021) seeking
to set aside the ex parte order; however, the said application was rejected by
order dated 22.01.2021. Challenging this rejection, the petitioner filed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
second writ petition. Both writ petitions were admitted on 12.03.2021, and an
interim stay was granted in the connected writ miscellaneous petition. Upon
notice, the respondent entered appearance and also filed a statement detailing
the arrears of salary and pension allegedly due to the contesting respondent.
4.The respondent filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the II Additional Labour Court, seeking a
sum of Rs.5,97,307/-. According to the respondent, he was initially engaged as
an attender on daily wages in the petitioner-Sabha in the year 1977. He was
subsequently made permanent in 1982, brought under the time scale of pay, and
promoted as a Grade I Clerk from the year 1983 onwards. However, pursuant to
disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, he was dismissed from service
on 18.07.2007.
5.At the time of his dismissal, an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 154 of
2007 was pending between the workers’ union and the petitioner-Sabha. As the
respondent was a workman concerned in the said dispute, the Sabha, in
purported compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, paid
him one month’s wages. However, since he was a protected workman and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
industrial dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer, the respondent
filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Act, vide his representation dated
27.12.2007. By order dated 31.03.2008, the authority held that the respondent
was indeed a protected workman and that the petitioner-Sabha’s action in
terminating his services without prior approval was in contravention of Section
33(1)(b) of the Act.
6.The order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Labour Officer, Circle III,
was challenged by the petitioner-Sabha in W.P. No. 12657 of 2008. The writ
petition was disposed of by order dated 07.03.2011, wherein it was held that
while the Conciliation Officer is competent to entertain a complaint under
Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, he is not empowered to render an
award akin to that of an adjudicating authority. His role is confined to recording
the violation in the failure report. In any event, this issue became academic as
the petitioner themselves reinstated the respondent on 07.03.2011. The only
issue that remained was the respondent’s claim for wages for the intervening
period between 18.07.2007 and 06.03.2011.
7.The petitioner contended that the period in question constituted a break
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
in service, as the respondent had been dismissed for misconduct, and further
argued that no approval under Section 33(2)(b) was required since the
respondent was not a protected workman. The respondent’s claim was taken on
file as C.P. No. 195 of 2016, and notice was issued to the petitioner-Sabha. In
response, the petitioner Sabha filed a counter statement dated 18.05.2017
opposing the claim. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, the
respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked 20 documents in support of
his case, which were exhibited as Exs. P1 to P20. On behalf of the petitioner-
Sabha, S. Kannan, Manager of the Sabha, and T.S.V. Panduranga Rao were
examined as RW1 and RW2, respectively. The petitioner Sabha also filed 11
documents, which were marked as Exs. R1 to R11.
8.The Labour Court found that a collective industrial dispute in I.D. No.
154 of 2007 was pending at the time the respondent’s termination was effected.
To establish the pendency of the dispute, the award passed in I.D. No. 154 of
2007 was marked as Ex. P20. The Court also noted the admission made by
RW1 that the said dispute was indeed pending at the time of the respondent’s
termination. Although the dispute pertained to the transfer of three workers, it
was treated as a collective dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
Act, and the respondent was held to be a workman concerned in that dispute.
Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila
Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, reported in
(2002) 2 SCC 244, the Labour Court held that the termination of the
respondent, effected without prior approval under Section 33(2)(b), was void ab
initio. Consequently, it held that the respondent was entitled to full back wages
for the period of non-employment until his reinstatement.
9.The Labour Court observed that RW2, after completing his chief
examination, failed to appear for cross-examination, and consequently, his
evidence was closed. As there was no objection raised to the proof affidavits
filed by the respondent’s witnesses, the Labour Court accepted the respondent’s
computation and quantified the amount payable accordingly, as noted in the
order. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order dated 08.01.2021,
contending that it was passed ex parte, and filed an application to set it aside.
However, the application was dismissed by the Labour Court as being devoid of
merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
10.The Labour Court held that the closure of RW2’s evidence was fully
justified. While dismissing the petitioner’s application, the Labour Court, in the
second impugned order, recorded the following findings in paragraph 3:-
“Heard. This petition is filed to set aside the exparte order said
to be pronounced on 8.1.2021. On perusal of the notes paper
i.e. the case dairy, it is noted, on 3.2.2020 the case was posted
for order after hearing both sides and since the Judicial Officer
was on casual leave, the case was reposted on 11.2.2020. On
11.2.2020, respondent management filed Interim petition for
reopen the case to let in further evidence. That petition was
allowed and respondent examined one witness RW2 on
18.3.2020 in part. For continuation of RW2 chief was posted
on 18.3.2020 and 24.3.2020 and due to covid-19 adjourned till
8.12.2020. But respondent not turned up. No representation for
respondent. Hence suo motu RW2 chief closed and posted for
argument. But respondent did not turned up till 21.12.2020. So
this court closed the argument and reserved for orders on
8.1.2021. On 8.1.2021, orders also pronounced. No
representation on management side till yesterday. Today the
petitioner management has come forward with this petition
stating that it is an exparte order and it has to be set aside. Since
petitioner and management witness RW1 was cross examined it
is not an exparte order. This court has pronounced AFT order
and this petition cannot be numbered to be disposed off in
merits.
As a result this petition is rejected as unnumbered.”
11.The circumstances under which a Labour Court may proceed with an
enquiry in the absence of one of the parties, or in case of non-cooperation, are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
governed by Rule 48(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. An
ex parte order may be set aside only upon the party demonstrating sufficient
cause for its absence. In the present case, the Labour Court found no such
sufficient cause to warrant setting aside its earlier order, which had been passed
on merits. The Court’s conclusion—that a collective dispute was pending at the
time of the respondent’s termination and that the petitioner failed to obtain the
requisite approval before effecting dismissal—is a valid ground to hold the
termination void ab initio. As held in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas
Bank Ltd.'s case (cited supra), such a violation entitles the workman to claim
back wages.
12.The two impugned orders of the Labour Court, which are under
challenge in these writ petitions, do not suffer from any legal infirmity and do
not warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both
writ petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
29.05.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
To
The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.P.No. 6478 & 6480 of 2021
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.Nos.6478 & 6480 of 2021
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
