Madras High Court
The General Manager vs S.Kothandaraman on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.25255 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 25.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 25255 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No. 26637of 2021
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Villupuram) Ltd,
Vellore Division,
Vellore. …..Petitioner
Vs.
S.Kothandaraman,
No.16/8, Kannaki Nagar,
OkkiyamThuraipakkam,
(near PTC Quarters)
Chennai ….Respondent
Prayer in W.P.
To pass a writ or certiorari or any writ, order or direction to quash the
impugned order passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.447
of 2013 dated 10.01.2019 for the payment of back wages and pass such other
orders as it deems fit and necessary.
Prayer in W.M.P.
To grant stay of operation of impugned order passed by the III Additional
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
W.P.No.25255 of 2021
Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.447 of 2013 dated 10.01.2019 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.M.Aswin, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. P.M.Duraisamy, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The present writ petition has been filed by the State-owned Transport
Corporation (Vellore Division), challenging the order dated 10.01.2019 passed
by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 447 of 2013. By the
said order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs. 5,05,359.10 as the amount
payable to the respondent and directed that the same be paid within a period of
two months from the date of the order. Although the impugned order was
passed on 10.01.2019, the petitioner corporation filed this writ petition only on
09.01.2021—nearly two years thereafter. The writ petition was admitted on
10.03.2022, and notice was ordered in the accompanying stay petition.
3.When the matter was taken up on 17.04.2025, due to lack of proper
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
representation on behalf of the petitioner corporation, this Court directed the
personal appearance of the General Manager. In the meantime, a new counsel
entered appearance for the petitioner and filed an additional typed set of
documents, including the work review sheets pertaining to the respondent, and
proceeded to argue the matter.
4.The respondent was employed as a driver and was dismissed from
service by order dated 17.12.2003. At the relevant time, a conciliation
proceeding was pending before the Joint Commissioner of Labour.
Accordingly, the petitioner-management filed an application under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval for the dismissal. The
said application was taken on file as Approval Petition No. 81 of 2004. Upon
hearing both parties, the Conciliation Officer, by order dated 31.01.2007,
dismissed the application and declined to grant approval.As the petitioner failed
to comply with the said order, the respondent filed W.P. No. 812 of 2008
seeking a direction to implement the same. This Court, by order dated
08.02.2008, allowed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent in view of the dismissal of the approval petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
5.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner
corporation preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No. 225 of 2009. It was brought to
the notice of the Court that during the pendency of the proceedings, the
respondent had been reinstated. In view of the same, the Division Bench
disposed of the writ appeal by order dated 01.04.2009. In paragraph 4 of the
said order, the following was recorded:
“During the pendency of Writ Appeal No. 225 of 2009 and Writ
Petition No. 25546 of 2007, in view of the direction for
reinstatement in Writ Petition No.812 of 2008, dated 8.2.2008,
the appellant Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd, Vellore Division, passed an
order, dated 18.3.2009, reinstating the writ petitioner
S.Kothandram. In view of the order of reinstatement dated
18.3.2009, Writ Appeal No.225 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.
25546 of 2007 have become infructuous and no further orders
are necessary and they are accordingly closed. No costs. The
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
6.As the respondent’s pay had not been properly fixed following his
reinstatement, he filed W.P. No. 23573 of 2010 seeking a declaration that his
pay should not be reduced from Rs. 8,675/- to Rs. 5,335/-. Upon issuance of
notice, this Court, by order dated 20.10.2010, disposed of the writ petition with
a direction to the petitioner corporation to consider the respondent’s
representation dated 13.09.2010 and to appropriately fix his pay.It is now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
brought to the notice of this court that by proceedings dt. 18.10.2008, and as
per W.P.23573 of 2010 order the representation was considered and basic pay
was restored to Rs.8675/- from Rs.5335/- and difference of amount for the
period from 06/2009 to 11/2010 (Total amount Rs.72,899/- after deducting PF
of Rs.6,430/- from total amount) balance Rs.66,469 was paid to the
Respondent.
7.Thereafter, the respondent filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act before the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai,
claiming arrears towards the 9th wage settlement, back wages, bonus and ex
gratia, leave surrender amount, and performance incentive, aggregating to a
total sum of Rs. 5,05,359.10. The petition was taken on file as C.P. No. 447 of
2013.The petitioner-management entered appearance and filed a counter
statement dated 18.01.2014, contending that all eligible benefits had been paid
to the respondent pursuant to the order of this Court and that no further amount
was due.Before the Labour Court, the respondent examined himself as PW1
and filed 18 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P18. On behalf
of the petitioner-management, one Ms. S. Kalavathi was examined as RW1, and
eight documents were filed and marked as Exhibits R1 to R8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
8.Upon a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
placed before the Labour Court, as well as the additional records now filed in
these proceedings, it is evident that the respondent’s entitlement to continuity
of service and back wages flows directly from the legal consequence of the
dismissal of the approval petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. However, the Labour Court, while awarding the entire amount
claimed under various heads such as back wages, bonus, performance
incentive, and leave surrender, did not have the benefit of certain departmental
G.O.s, wage revision circulars, and work review sheets now produced by the
petitioner-management. These documents, although not filed earlier, appear
relevant to determining eligibility criteria for specific monetary benefits—some
of which, such as bonus and performance incentives, are ordinarily linked to
actual performance of duty. The Labour Court also did not take into account the
admitted payment of Rs.66,469/- already made to the respondent pursuant to
earlier court directions. In such circumstances, and in the interest of fairness,
this Court considers it appropriate to remand the matter to the Labour Court for
a limited reconsideration confined to the computation of the amount payable,
without disturbing the finding on the non est nature of the dismissal and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
respondent’s consequent entitlement to continuity of service.
9.In the result, the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the III Additional
Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 447 of 2013 is set aside as regards the
quantum and the matter is remanded to the said Labour Court for a fresh
adjudication confined to the computation of the amount payable to the
respondent. The Labour Court shall consider all relevant materials placed on
record, including the documents now filed before this Court—such as wage
revision proceedings, 12(3) settlements, departmental G.O.s, service eligibility
norms for performance-linked benefits, and records of payments already made
—and pass appropriate orders on the quantum in accordance with law. The
Labour Court shall not reopen the question of the respondent’s entitlement to
back wages or the invalidity of the dismissal, which stands concluded by virtue
of the rejection of the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Labour Court is directed to complete the exercise within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of remand, and
the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
29.05.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
To
The Presiding Officer,
III Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
(with records)
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
W.M.P.No. 26637of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:25 pm )
