Madras High Court

B.Vijayakumar vs The Managing Director on 30 October, 2025

                                                                                          W.P.No.24786 of 2022



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 30.10.2025

                                                            CORAM :

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                                                 W.P.No.24786 of 2022

                     B.Vijayakumar                                                             .. Petitioner

                                                                 vs


                     The Managing Director,
                     Vellore District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale
                      Stores Limited, Anna Salai,
                     Vellore – 632 0014.                                                     .. Respondent


                     Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

                     praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, after

                     calling for the concerned records from the 1st respondent, quash the

                     order of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore dated 02.08.2022 in

                     C.P.No. 103 of 2016 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and

                     consequently direct the respondent to pay the difference of wages

                     of Rs.2,01,168/- payable to the petitioner for the period from

                     01.04.2008 to 31.12.2011 in terms of the Settlement entered under

                     Section      12(3)   of   the    I.D.Act,        1947,       dated   26.06.2009     and

                     24.10.2011.




                     1/9



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )
                                                                                             W.P.No.24786 of 2022




                                  For Petitioner     :         Mr.Balan Haridas

                                  For Respondent     :         Mr.R.Balaramesh

                                                                ORDER

The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of

a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by

the Principal Labour Court, Vellore in C.P. No. 103 of 2016. By the

said order, the Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (for brevity, “the Act”).

2. The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the respondent

establishment from 22.05.1977 to 31.05.2015. The union, of which

the petitioner was a member, entered into settlements under

Section 12(3) of the Act. The said settlements were dated

26.06.2009 and 24.10.2011. As per the terms of the settlements,

the workmen, including the petitioner, were entitled to revised

wages for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013.

3. The petitioner, alleging that the revised wages due for the

period from 01.04.2008 to 31.12.2011 under the terms of the

settlement had not been paid, filed an application under Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )

33(C)(2) of the Act. The Labour Court dismissed the application on

the grounds of limitation and also for the reason that the petitioner

had not filed a calculation memo claiming arrears of revised wages.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner initially made a claim for a sum of

Rs.2,92,276/- in the claim petition but subsequently restricted the

claim to Rs.2,29,162/-, which was not disputed by the respondent

establishment. He further submitted that the Labour Court was not

justified in dismissing the application as barred by limitation.

Learned counsel also submitted that similarly situated persons were

extended the benefit of revised arrears of wages, and the said issue

had attained finality before this Court in W.P. No. 18990 of 2019,

vide order dated 19.04.2021. Therefore, he prayed that the

impugned order passed by the Labour Court be set aside and the

application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act be allowed.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent

establishment submitted that the arrears of revised wages had

already been paid to the petitioner and that the application filed

under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act was barred by limitation. It was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )

contended that the Labour Court had considered all relevant aspects

in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the claim petition. In the

absence of any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the writ

petition, according to the respondent, is devoid of merit and liable

to be dismissed.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and

the materials placed on record have been duly considered.

7. It is an admitted fact that the union, of which the petitioner

was a member, had entered into settlements with the respondent

establishment under Section 12(3) of the Act, vide settlements

dated 26.06.2009 and 24.10.2011. As per the terms of the said

settlements, the workmen, including the petitioner, were entitled to

revised wages for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013.

8. The petitioner’s union had earlier filed an application under

Section 33(C)(2) of the Act in C.P. No. 99 of 2017. The Labour

Court, by order dated 28.02.2019, allowed the said application and

directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.65,70,600/- towards

arrears of revised wages to the union on behalf of the employees

listed in the calculation memo dated 28.11.2018. The said order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )

was challenged by the respondent before this Court in W.P. No.

18990 of 2019. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated

19.04.2021, dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order

passed by the Labour Court, while denying the interest component

awarded therein if the amount was paid within the stipulated period.

9. The Coordinate Bench, in its order, observed that two

settlements were entered into on 26.06.2009 and 24.10.2011, and

that the claim was made only in the year 2017. The Bench held that

the contention of the management regarding limitation was

untenable in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Others [1963 (2) LLJ

608] and Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v.

Rameswar and Others [(1968) 1 LLJ 6 (SC)], wherein it was held

that the period of three years’ limitation is not applicable to claims

made under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. The said order has attained

finality and has already been implemented.

10. In the present case, the claim petition was filed in 2016.

Initially, the petitioner claimed Rs.2,92,276/-, but later restricted

his claim to Rs.2,29,162/-, which was not disputed by the

respondent. The Labour Court, however, dismissed the claim

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )

petition on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished a proper

calculation excluding the period for which he had admittedly

received the revised salary from January 2011 to October 2011. It

is seen that the petitioner had already excluded the said period and

restricted his claim accordingly. When the revised amount was not

disputed, the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the claim

on the ground that the exact amount due was not disclosed.

11. The Labour Court further dismissed the application as

being barred by limitation. This Court, in the aforesaid W.P. No.

18990 of 2019, has categorically held that the three-year limitation

period is not applicable to applications filed under Section 33(C)(2)

of the Act. Since the petitioner in the present case is also claiming

arrears of revised wages under the very same settlements that

were the subject matter of the said writ petition, the finding of the

Labour Court that the claim is barred by limitation is unsustainable

and liable to be set aside.

12. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of revised

wages for the relevant period amounting to Rs.2,29,162/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )

13. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed

by the Principal Labour Court, Vellore in C.P. No.

103 of 2016 is set aside, and consequently, the

application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is allowed.

(iii) The respondent is directed to pay a sum of

Rs.2,29,162/- to the petitioner within a period of

four (4) months from the date of uploading of this

order on the official website of this Court. In the

event the respondent fails to pay the said amount

within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall be

entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum

on the said amount from the date of default until

actual realization.

(iv) No costs.

30.10.2025 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:51:54 pm )