Madras High Court
The Management Of The Nilgiris District vs S.Natarajan on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.3801 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 22.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 3801 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.4337 of 2021
The Management of the Nilgiris District
Co-operative Milk Producers Union
Coonoor Road,
Udhagamandalam …. Petitioner
Vs.
S.Natarajan,
S/o. Subbiah,
No.372-B, Attukollai,
R.K.S.Mandy, Yellanalli,
Nilgiris – 643 243 …. Respondent
Prayer in W.P.
To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate or order or direction in the
nature of the writ calling for the records in C.P.No. 149 of 2011 on the file of
the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore dated 07.11.2019 and quash the same
and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper and thus render justice.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.No.3801 of 2021
Prayer in W.M.P.
To grant an order of Interim Stay of all further proceedings pursuant to an
Award dated 07.11.2019 and made in C.P.No.149 of 2011 on the file of the
Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore pending disposal of the above writ
petition.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : M/s. G.Muniratnam and V.Manisekaran, Advocates
For Respondent : Ms.G.K.Dharshini, Advocate For M/s.R.Krishnasamy,
V.Ajoy Khose, V.Porkodi, S.Manogaran and H.Nandhini,
Advocates
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The petitioner is the Co-operative Milk Producers Union of Nilgiris
District. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
07.11.2019 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P. No. 149
of 2011. By the said order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.4,34,205/-
as dues payable to the respondent for the period from 17.04.1996 to
31.03.2011, along with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
3.When the writ petition was listed for admission on 22.02.2021, this
Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and granted an interim stay,
subject to the condition that the petitioner-management shall pay 25% of the
amount awarded by the Labour Court, failing which the interim order shall
stand vacated automatically without further reference to the Court.
4.Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 05.11.2024, it was directed
to be placed before the Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. However, as the
parties were unable to arrive at a settlement, the matter was returned for
hearing before this Court.
5.The records reveal that the respondent, along with 73 other workmen,
invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Permanent Status Act”), through their trade union. Upon hearing both
sides, the competent authority passed a final order dated 31.01.1992 in Case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
No. 1 of 1992, holding that all 74 workers represented in the application were
entitled to be conferred with permanent status. The names of the concerned
workmen were enumerated in the annexure to the said order, wherein the
respondent’s name appears at Serial No. 47. His date of entry into service was
recorded as 17.04.1986, and it was found that he had completed 480 days of
continuous service within a span of 24 calendar months as on 12.08.1987.
6.However, as the respondent was not employed he raised an industrial
dispute before the Government Labour Officer concerning his non-
employment. The dispute was taken on file by the Labour Court, Coimbatore as
I.D. No. 82 of 1995. After issuing notice to the parties and conducting a full-
fledged trial, the Labour Court passed a final award dated 17.04.1996. In the
operative portion of the award, the Labour Court held as follows:
“bjh/rh/2 cj;jutpd; fPH; kDjhuu; epue;jpug;gLj;j ntz;Lbkd;w
bjhHpwr; hiy cjtp gpujk Ma;thsu; cj;jut[g; gpwg;gj;jpUg;gjpdhy;
mjd;go kDjhuUf;F gzp mspf;f ntz;Lk;/ kDjhuu; gzpf;F
M$uhftpyi ; y vd;W TwpaJ rupay;y/ kDjhuUf;F gzp bra;a
mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwJ/ mt;thW mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;lJ gzp
ePff; j;jpw;F xg;ghdjhFk;/ vdnt ,e;j tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l
Mtz';fis vy;yhk; rPu;Jhf;fpg; ghu;f;Fk;nghJ kDjhuUf;F
bjh/rh/M/1 cj;jutpdg; o epue;jukhd gzpaspf;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd;W
,e;j ePjpkd;wk; jPuk; hdpf;fpwJ/ 9/4/93f;Fg; gpwF kDjhuiu gzp
bra;a mDkjpf;fhjjpdhy; kDjhuu; gzp bra;ahjjpdhYk; mtUf;F
gpdr; k;gsk; fpilg;gjw;fpy;iy vd;W gpur;ridf;F Kot[ fhz;fpnwd;/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
,Wjpapy; ,e;j kD xU gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gl;L kDjhuUf;F
gpdr; k;gskpy;yhky; epue;jukhd gzp vjpu;kDjhuupdhy; mspf;fg;gl
ntz;Lbkd;W jPu;g;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[jb; jhif ,y;iy/ ”
7.Aggrieved by the said award, the Management filed a writ petition
before this Court in W.P. No. 3756 of 1997. The said writ petition was
dismissed by order dated 23.08.2007. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order,
this Court held as follows:
“8. In the light of the above, there is no substance in the
contention of the writ petitioner that the first respondent did
not work for 480 days in two calendar years or 240 days in a
calendar year. There was ample evidence before the Labour
Court to come to the conclusion and therefore this court
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, cannot interfere with such findings of fact, based on
evidence when there is no apparent error on the face of the
award.
9. The other contention raised by the writ petitioner is that the
first respondent was convicted under section 309 of I.P.C,
therefore, he was disqualified under Section 149 of the The
Co-operative Societies Act 1983 to maintain the petition
before the Labour Court. I am unable to accept this contention
also. A perusal of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Udagamandalam on 3.6.1993 would show that as the accused /
first respondent is the first time accused, he was warned and
released under section 3 of Supervision of Criminals Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
Therefore, I find no merits in the above writ petition and the
same is dismissed. No costs.”
8.During the pendency of the writ petition, and pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court, the respondent was paid last drawn wages under Section
17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for the period from 01.10.1999 to
01.10.2007, amounting to a total sum of Rs. 1,68,000/-. It is further stated that
the Management preferred a writ appeal against the order of the learned Single
Judge; however, the said appeal was yet to be numbered and is stated to be
pending at the stage of serial registration as W.A. SR No. 77559 of 2007. No
further particulars regarding the progress or status of the said writ appeal have
been furnished by the Management. In the absence of any such information, it
may be reasonably presumed that the appeal no longer survives.
9.It is claimed that the respondent had addressed several representations
to the petitioner-management seeking reinstatement into service. However, the
petitioner failed to implement the award. In its reply dated 15.07.2016, the
petitioner informed the respondent that reinstatement was not possible in view
of the claim petition filed by him. The records further reveal that the respondent
had filed three claim petitions before the Labour Court, namely, C.P. Nos. 149
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
of 2011, 88 of 2016, and 34 of 2018—the present petition—seeking appropriate
reliefs.
10.The respondent also lodged a complaint alleging non-implementation
of the award, which was taken up for hearing on multiple occasions by the
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor. However, these proceedings did
not culminate in any effective relief. In C.P. No. 34 of 2018, the respondent
sought wages for the period from September 2016 to April 2018, amounting to
Rs. 5,76,460/-, in addition to claims towards Pongal gift, minimum bonus, and
leave salary. The aggregate of all claims raised by the respondent was Rs.
6,55,541/. Pursuant to notice issued by the Labour Court, the petitioner-
management filed a counter statement dated 30.08.2019. In the said counter, the
petitioner admitted the order passed by the authority under the Permanent
Status Act and also conceded that the respondent’s name appeared among the
74 workers listed therein. In paragraph 6 of the counter statement, the petitioner
stated as follows:
“The respondent submits that, on receipt of the order of Deputy
Chief Inspector of Factories, passed a resolution in the
personnel committee meeting held on 12.08.1993 to regularize
the service of the casual laborers. Accordingly the respondents
vide their proceedings dated 22.09.1993 regularised 101casual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
laborers with effect from 01.09.1993 on a consolidated salary of
Rs.800/- per month. However the petitioner’s name did not
figure in the list and hence the services of the petitioner was not
regularised.”
11.Further, in paragraph 7 of the counter statement, the petitioner-
management stated as follows:
“It is submitted that the respondent has sent a representation to
the Government of Tamil Nadu, through Commissioner for
Milk Production and Dairy Development to regularize casual
labourers employed in the union. The Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 13.04.1994 passed orders to regularize
the services of irregular appointments of casual labourers
without consulting employment exchange, employed in various
District Co-operative Milk Producers Union. At pages 5,6 and
7 of the G.O, the list of casual workers to be regularized in the
respondent union figures. Again the name of the petitioner did
not figure in the list.”
12.The statement made by the management in paragraph 6 of the counter
is rather disconcerting. Having unequivocally admitted that the respondent’s
name appeared among the 74 workmen who were directed to be conferred
permanent status by the authority under the Permanent Status Act, and having
resolved to implement the said order, it is unclear how the management could
subsequently exclude the respondent from the list of employees proposed to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
made permanent. When the respondent approached the Labour Court and
secured an award in his favour— the operative portion of which has already
been extracted above— and when the said award was subsequently confirmed
by this Court, it is indeed surprising that the petitioner could make the
following statement in paragraph 8 of the counter filed before the Labour
Court:
“It is further submitted that, while the matter stood thus, the
petitioner did turn up for work to the respondent union with
effect from 09.04.1993 and raised a dispute before the
Honourable Court in I.D.No.82 of 1995 alleging termination of
service. The Honourable Court after hearing the parties passed
an award on 17.04.1996 and in the same directed the respondent
to provide permanent employment to the petitioner without back
wages. The Honourable Court did not award continuity of
service or attendant benefits to the petitioner.”
[Emphasis added]
13.It is true that by the award dated 17.04.1996 in I.D. No. 82 of 1995,
the Labour Court did not grant back wages to the respondent on the ground that
he had not actually performed any duty. However, the Labour Court did not, at
any point, deny the benefit of continuity of service. At the risk of repetition,
paragraph 6 of the award—already extracted above—merits reproduction once
again:
“bjh/rh/2 cj;jutpd; fPH; kDjhuu; epue;jug;gLj;j ntz;Lbkd;w
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
bjhHpwr; hiy cjtp gpujk Ma;thsu; cj;jut[g; gpwg;gj;jpUg;gjpdhy;
mjd;go kDjhuUf;F gzp mspf;f ntz;Lk;/ kDjhuu; gzpf;F
M$uhftpyi ; y vd;W TwpaJ rupay;y/ kDjhuUf;F gzp bra;a mDkjp
kWf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwJ/ mt;thW mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;lJ gzp ePf;fj;jpw;F
xg;ghdjhFk;/ vdnt ,e;j tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l Mtz';fis
vy;yhk; rPu;Jhf;fpg; ghu;fF
; k;nghJ kDjhuUf;F bjh/rh/M/1 cj;jutpd;go
epue;jukhd gzpaspf;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk;
jPu;khdpf;fpwJ/ 9/4/93f;Fg; gpwF kDjhuiu gzp bra;a
mDkjpf;fhjjpdhy; kDjhuu; gzp bra;ahjjpdhYk; mtUf;F gpdr; k;gsk;
fpilg;gjw;fpyi; y vd;W gpur;ridf;F Kot[ fhz;fpnwd;/ ”
[Emphasis added]
14.Once the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to
reinstatement pursuant to the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories
dated 31.01.1992 (marked as Ex.P1), it necessarily follows that such
reinstatement should relate back to the date on which he was deemed to have
been made permanent by the authority under the Permanent Status Act, namely,
with effect from 12.08.1987. It is not open to the petitioner-management to
unilaterally interpret or misapply the provisions of the said order or the award
in favour of the respondent. Nor can the petitioner seek refuge under the plea of
having implemented some other government order relating to regularisation,
particularly when the respondent had already obtained a binding statutory
declaration of permanent status.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
15.Insofar as the merits of the claim are concerned, the petitioner-
management, once again, made the following averment in paragraph 10 of the
counter statement in C.P No. 34 of 2018:
“….The respondent submits that a plain reading of the award will
evidence the fact that the award is silent about continuity of
service and attendant benefits to the petitioner. The Honourable
Court has also not granted any back wages to the petitioner.
Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any difference in salary for
the period 01.09.2016 to 31.04.2018 as claimed by him in the
petition. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to Pongal Gift,
Minimum Bonus and Leave Salary, since the Honourable Court
has not granted continuity of service nor attendant benefits.”
16.The stand taken by the petitioner-management before the Labour
Court is wholly untenable and directly contrary to the order passed by the
Permanent Status Authority as well as the award of the Labour Court, which
stood confirmed by this Court when challenged by the management. Although
the petitioner raised a faint objection regarding the maintainability of the claim
petition, contending the absence of a pre-existing right, the Labour Court
rejected the said plea and rightly held that the petition under Section 33C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable. It further held that there was no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
undue delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the Labour Court for
computation of back wages.
17.As regards the proof of wages, the Labour Court drew an adverse
inference against the management. Despite the respondent filing I.A. No. 569
of 2017 seeking a direction to the management to produce the wage registers
for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2011, as well as the service registers of
two similarly placed workers—which application was allowed—the
management failed to produce the said records.
18.The Labour Court accepted the evidence adduced by the respondent
and proceeded to compute back wages based on the entries found in the service
registers marked as Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. While the Labour Court declined the
respondent’s claims under the heads of bonus and other ancillary benefits, it
computed the wages for the period from 17.04.1996 to 31.03.2011 at a total
sum of Rs. 6,02,205/-. After giving due credit to the amount of Rs. 1,68,000/-
already paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the
pendency of the writ petition, the net amount payable was determined as Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
4,34,205/-. The petitioner-management has once again approached this Court
challenging the said order, without any tenable grounds.
19.The contentions advanced in the affidavit are a verbatim reiteration of
the counter statement earlier filed before the Labour Court, which were already
duly considered by the Labour Court and rightly rejected. The argument that the
respondent did not report for duty after 09.04.1993 deserves to be rejected
outright. It was the petitioner-management that persistently resisted the
respondent’s claims by challenging every order passed in his favour. Even now,
the management continues to misinterpret the award granted to the respondent.
The conduct of the petitioner Milk Producers Union—an entity functioning
under the administrative control of the Co-operative Department—is highly
regrettable and does not inspire confidence. Such conduct, bordering on
deliberate defiance, cannot be countenanced by this Court. Judicial proceedings
are not to be treated as a game of chance.
20.In the result, the writ petition in W.P. No. 3801 of 2021 stands
dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The petitioner shall
pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent towards legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
fees. If, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the respondent has already
received 25% of the amount awarded, he shall be entitled to recover the balance
amount from the petitioner-management in accordance with law.
29.05.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
To
The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court,
Coimbatore
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
