Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presenting Officer on 25 September, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
2025:MHC:2275
W.A.No.3630 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 18.09.2025
Pronounced on 25.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.3630 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.28491 of 2024
The Management,
State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presenting Officer,
Principal Judge Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Buildings,
High Court Compound,
Chennai – 600 104.
2.S.Panneer Selvam ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34587 of 2016.
For Appellants : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For Respondents : Labour Court – R1
Mr.V.Ajoy Khose for R2
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
W.A.No.3630 of 2024
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
On the strength of certain proven charges during the domestic
enquiry, the second respondent herein was dismissed from service on
20.10.1994. When he had challenged the dismissal order before the
Labour Court in I.D.No.240 of 1996, the dismissal order was set aside
with a consequential direction to the Management to reinstate the
workman with 50% of the back wages, through an Award dated
22.10.2003. On appeal against the Award before this Court in
W.P.No.22681 of 2004, the backwages alone was reduced from 50% to
20%. The further intra-court appeal against the Writ Petition through
W.A.No.798 of 2013 was dismissed on 08.01.2014. The Management
had thereafter reinstated the second respondent into service on
12.04.2014.
2. Since the backwages, as ordered by the Labour Court and
modified in the Writ Petition, was not paid, the Computation Petition
under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'ID Act'), in C.P.No.342 of 2014 was filed. The Labour
Court, by its order dated 20.05.2016, had computed the total arrears of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
salary from 22.10.2003 to 30.06.2014 at Rs.18,90,240/- with a further
direction to pay the outstanding amount, within two months from the
date of the order, failing which, the Management was directed to pay
interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount, till the date of
payment. The order passed in the Computation Petition came to be
challenged before a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34587
of 2016, which was dismissed on 20.06.2022. This Writ Appeal is against
the dismissal order passed in the Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that they are
aggrieved only against the order of the Labour Court imposing payment
of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. According to the learned counsel,
when the original Award itself did not provide for interest on the
backwages, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded interest at the
rate of 9% on the computed amount. In order to persuade on this aspect,
he relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of G.Ramadoss and others Vs. Management of Tansi Die Castings
Industrial Estate, chennai and others reported in 2000 (4) L.L.N. 914.
He further added that when the Labour Court had declined to award
interest on the backwages, the second respondent had not challenged that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
portion of the Award and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have
awarded interest.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent would submit that the interest on the computed amount by the
Labour Court was only a default interest, for non-payment of the
computed amount and not on the backwages as ordered in the Award of
the Labour Court.
5. The scope of computation in an application under section
33C(2) of the ID Act over the monetary benefits in the Award can be
determined only within the contours of the directions in the Award and
no additional adjudication can take place. In other words, when the main
Award does not provide for payment of interest on the backwages, the
Computing Court will be exceeding in its authority, if any adjudication is
done for the interest on the backwages awarded by the Labour Court. To
this extent, we are in agreement with the decision in the case of
G.Ramadoss (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
6. But the crucial issue that requires to be looked into is whether or
not the Computing Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in adjudicating a
component, which is conspicuously absent in the main Award itself.
7. It is not as if the Labour Court had computed and determined the
interest on the backwages awarded by the Labour Court and later
modified in the Writ Petition. On the other hand, the Labour Court had
consciously refrained from undertaking such a task and had determined
only the backwages for the relevant period. The 9% interest awarded is
only a default clause for non-payment of the computed amount within the
stipulated period of two months. There is no rule or regulation which
places an embargo for the Computing Court to impose penal interest for
non-payment of the computed amount after the stipulated period. As a
matter of fact, the Labour Court was well within its jurisdiction to
impose such a default clause for interest. Hence, there is no illegality or
any other irregularity in the order of the Labour Court.
8. When the order passed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act was
challenged before the Writ Court in W.P.No.34587 of 2016, the same was
dismissed on 20.06.2022. As such, the order of the Labour Court, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
20.05.2016, stands confirmed. In the light of our findings, no
interference is required to both the orders of the Labour Court, as well as
the Writ Court.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Management
submitted that pending the proceedings before this Court, an order of
conditional interim stay was passed, by which the Management had
already deposited 50% of the total backwages and that they had also been
paying the wages under section 17-B of the ID Act.
10. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed with a
consequential direction to the appellant herein to pay the entire
backwages computed in C.P.No.342 of 2014 dated 20.05.2016 on the file
of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, within four weeks from today,
which shall also include 9% interest on the outstanding amount with
effect from 20.07.2016, i.e, after expiry of two months from the date of
the order in C.P.No.342 of 2014, till the date of actual payment, after
deducting the amount which has already been deposited by the
Management before the Labour Court. For calculating such deduction,
the date of deposit of the 50% backwages, shall be relevant. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
respondent is also be at liberty to file an appropriate application before
the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, seeking for withdrawal of the
amount deposited to the credit of C.P.No.342 of 2014. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R.,J] [R.S.V.,J]
25.09.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
To
1.The Presenting Officer,
Principal Judge Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Buildings,
High Court Compound,
Chennai – 600 104.
2.The Management,
State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
25.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:23 pm )
