Madras High Court
The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 9 September, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.505, 506, 519, 564 & 565 of 2020
W.A(MD)No.43 of 2020
The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Virudhunagar. ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.1/
Respondent No.1
2.V.Sivaram ... Respondent No.2/
Respondent No.2
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.4382 of 2013, dated 29.04.2019.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
W.A(MD)No.47 of 2020
The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Virudhunagar. ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.1/
Respondent No.1
2.I.Paulraj (Died)
3.P.Anuradha
4.Minor Aswin Ryan
5.Minor Libina Arul
6.Subbulakshmi
(4th and 5th respondents are minors
represented by their mother-3rd respondent)
(Respondents 3 to 6 /LRs of the deceased
second respondent impleaded as per the
common order of this Court
dated 19.06.2025) ... Respondents 3 to 6
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.4495 of 2013, dated 29.04.2019.
W.A(MD)No.59 of 2020
The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Virudhunagar. ... Appellant/Petitioner
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court,
Madurai. ... Respondent No.1/
Respondent No.1
2.Lingaraj (Died)
3.L.Kakala Devi
4.L.Vanamoorthiraja
5.L.Jeyambigai
(Respondents 3 to 5 /LRs of the deceased
2nd respondent impleaded as per the
common order of this Court dated 19.06.2025)... Respondents 3 to 5
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.7645 of 2013, dated 29.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Dinakar
for Mr.S.Gladson Michel Rajadurai
For R2 : Mr.S.Arunachalam
in all the writ appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
These three writ appeals have been filed by some of the writ
petitioners aggrieved by the common order passed on 29.04.2019 in the
three writ petitions among other writ petitions by the learned Single
Judge.
2. By the common order dated 29.04.2019, the learned
Single Judge in a string of writ petitions had examined the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
common order passed on 24.05.2017, wherein, a settelement which had
been reached between the management and the workmen under Section
12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on 25.09.1986 had been
recognised and it had directed grant of reinstatement together with
attendent benefits. That particular order had been put to challenge by the
Management/appellant herein.
3.These writ appeals had also come up for consideration, but
were not taken up since the writ petitioner in W.A(MD)No.47 of 2020
and the writ petitioner in W.A(MD)No.59 of 2020 were reported dead
and their legal representatives had to be brought on record. They had
been subsequently brought on record and now they are the respondents in
both the writ appeals. The writ petitioner, who is the respondent No.2 in
W.A(MD)No.43 of 2020 had also not been provided with reinstatement.
There is no dispute that the order of the Division Bench in a string of
writ appeals dated 08.03.2021 would apply to the present cases also. The
only difference is that in W.A(MD)No.47 of 2020 and W.A(MD)No.59 of
2020 though we would direct reinstatement to the workmen/second
respondent, since the workmen had died, we hold that their legal
representatives would be entitled for all terminal benefits. We also take
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the second
respondent that the respondents/legal representatives of the workmen
may also be permitted to file an application seeking employment on
compassionate ground and that if such application is made, the
appellant/management of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited
must consider those application in the manner known to law, without any
delay and if otherwise in order, pass appropriate orders.
4. With respect to the second respondent in W.A.(MD)No.43
of 2020, we would also direct that reinstatement shall be granted to the
second respondent and if for any circumstance, the
appellant/management is of the opinion that he is not to fit to discharge
his work as a conductor, we hold that there is an obligation to give an
alternative employment and maintain the same salary and grant necessary
pay protection.
5. We hold that the legal representatives, who are the
respondents in W.A(MD)No.47 of 2020 and W.A(MD)No.59 of 2020 are
entitled for the terminal benefits from the date of death of the two
employees namely I.Paulraj and P.Lingaraj respectively and also entitled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
to apply for the compassionate employment. With respect to the second
respondent in W.A(MD)No.43 of 2020 we would direct the appellant to
grant 50% of the backwages from the date on which co-employees were
actually reinstated consequent to the orders passed by this Court.
6. The earlier co-ordinate Division Bench had passed final
orders in the writ appeals and had issued the following directions:
"6.Pending the writ appeals, a settlement under Section
18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been arrived at
between the parties. Accordingly, a Government Order in G.O.
(Ms)No.130, Transport (C1) Department, dated 02.11.2020, was
passed. The following is the operative portion of the said
Government Order:-
''11.The Government after careful examination, have
decided to accept the proposal of the Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
Limited as recommended by Board of Directors of Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited in its
250th and 257th board meetings and accordingly direct the
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Limited to reinstate the 26
Conductors and 9 Drivers (totally 35 members) by relaxing
the G.O.(Ms)No.790, Labour Department, dated
05.07.1971, subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal Nos.36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
to 38, 40 to 62, 64 to 68, 70 and 72 to 74 / 2020 filed by the
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
Limited. Accordingly, the Government issues following
directions to Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai.
(i) Reinstate Nine (9) Drivers and Twenty Six (26)
Conductors of Virudhunagar Region of the Corporation as
stated above and confirm their services with effect from
23.09.2008 without any back wage payment for the period
from the date of confirmation till the date of order of
reinstatement after entering into a settlement under Section
18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(ii) Sanction settlement benefits from the date of
confirmation till the date of order of reinstatement for
fixing their basic pay and to take into account their
services only from the date of order of reinstatement for
giving review benefits.
(iii) to pay Provident Fund Contributions for the
period from the date of confirmation till the date of order
of reinstatement to the above 9 Drivers and 26 Conductors.
(iv) the period from the date of confirmation till the
date of order of reinstatement may be considered as
eligible service for payment of Gratuity at the time of their
exit from the service.
12.This order issues with the concurrence of the
Finance (BPE) Department vide its U.O.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
28494/Fin(BPE)/2020, dated 03.09.2020."
7. The Division Bench had finally held as follows:-
" 7.In view of the aforesaid factual position, all the
Writ Appeals stand disposed of by recording the settlement
entered into between the appellant and
respondents/workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, followed by the Government Order in
G.O.(Ms)No.130, Transport (C1) Department, dated
02.11.2020, which has been given effect to through the
various orders passed by the appellant giving appointment,
dated 19.02.2021. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
8. The said direction also would enure in these writ appeals
with the only modification that the second respondents' legal heirs in
W.A(MD)No.47 of 2020 and W.A(MD)No.59 of 2020 would be entitled
for the terminal benefits payable to the second respondent in each one of
the two writ appeals and they are also permitted to apply compassionate
appointment for any eligible family member, which application is
directed to be processed without any undue delay in the manner known
to law and appropriate orders be passed by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
9. With respect to W.A(MD)No.43 of 2020 we would only
state that the second respondent would be entitled to 50% of the
backwages from the date on which other co-employees were actually
reinstated and if for any reason, the appellant is of the opinion that the
job of conductor could not be granted to the second respondent, then they
must give suitable alternative employment keeping in mind the scope and
object of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
10. Necessary orders should be passed by the appellant
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
11. In view of the above reasons, the writ appeals are
disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
Index : Yes / No (C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
Internet : Yes / No 09.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.43, 47 & 59 of 2020
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:58:24 pm )
