High Court · 2025

W.P.No.133 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 26.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P.No.133 of 2024and WMP.No.143 of 2024The Management of MetropolitanTransport Corporation (Chennai) LtdPallavan House, Pallavan SalaiChennai - 600 002.... PetitionerVs.S.Veeramani ... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award in C.P.No.161 of 2019 dated 11.04.2023 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.T.ChandrasekaranFor Respondent : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024ORDERChallenging the award passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.161 of2019, the Managment of the Transport Corporation is before this Court.2. The short facts are as follows :a)The respondent was appointed as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation on 21.01.1998. He was continuously absent for duty without permission from 03.11.2011 for more than 8 days. Thereafter, based on the report of the Branch Manager, Chrompet Depot dated 18.01.2011, a charge memo dated 28.01.2011 was served on him. Though he acknowledged the receipt, no explanation was given by him. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner, in which, the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the charges against the employee was proved. The Enquiry Officer also submitted his report dated 10.01.2012.b)The respondent once again was on unauthorized leave from 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 202403.01.2011 to 31.08.2012 i.e., for more than 595 days. Therefore, taking note of his earlier conduct, the petitioner-Management decided to dismiss him from services. However, in order to give him an opportunity, the second show cause notice along with enquiry report was sent to him on 17.02.2012, asking him to submit his explanation. To which, the respondent responded and submitted his explanation and also requested the Management to provide him with employment.c)Subsequently, by a letter dated 16.04.2012, the respondent had required the petitioner-workman to join duty, and the same was received by him on 21.04.2012. But the respondent did not join the duty. To give him a final chance, a publication in one Tamil daily 'Dhinaboomi' was published on 01.09.2012 requiring the respondent to meet the General Manager and to report duty. However, he did not make use of the opportunity and the Management having followed all the procedures established under law, ultimately, by an order dated 17.09.2012 had dismissed the respondent from service.d)The petitioner Management had proceeded to file approval 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024petition in A.P.No.252 of 2012, seeking approval for dismissal. Without considering the merits of the case, the authority had dismissed the approval petition, against which, the Management had filed W.P.No.33501 of 2015. This Court by an order dated 03.02.2016, had allowed the writ petition in part, in and by which, it confirmed the findings of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, and therefore, it sets aside the punishment of termination and remanded the matter back to the petitioner-Management to impose minor punishments, if any.e)Aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.33501 of 2015, the petitioner Management had preferred a review petition in Rev.Appl.No.74 of 2019, and the same was dismissed on 15.03.2019, wherein, the Court had suggested the petitioner and the workman to hold discussions with regard to backwages. f)The petitioner-Management had sent a letter to the workman on 29.11.2019 intimating him to join duty, however, no backwages would be paid to him.g)The respondent-workman instead of joining the duty, had filed a 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024computation petition in C.P.No.161 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.14,56,332/- towards his backwages, bonus, leave salary, dearness allowances etc., Thereafter, the respondent had joined the duty on 04.03.2020.h)The petitioner-Management had filed a counter to the said C.P.No.161 of 2019 alleging that the claim of backwages for the period October 2012 to November 2019, which works to Rs.13,39,364/- is not sustainable for the reason, the workman was dismissed from service on 24.01.2008, on account of his continued absence. That apart, the dearness allowances and city compensatory allowance would be awarded once in six months as per the wage settlement for the regularised employees and not for the respondent category. Therefore, the claim of the workman is bad in law.i)The Labour Court without considering the merits of the case, had computed the backwages and passed an award on 11.04.2023, directing the petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.11,70,002/- to the respondent-workman in five installments on 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024or before 31.10.2023, failing which, the Management was directed to pay the said amount with 9% interest from the date of its order.Challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 11.04.2023 in C.P.No.161 of 2019, the petitioner-Management is before this Court.3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management would submit that the petitioner-Management had called upon the respondent-workman to rejoin the duty on 29.11.2019, but the respondent-workman had not chosen to join the duty.4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would state that by virtue of the impugned order, the Labour Court had only directed the Management to pay the amount that has been agreed by the petitioner-Management and not the amount claimed by the workman.5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management has not refuted the said statement. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 20246. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. In the order dated 11.04.2023, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai had observed as follows :"vjph;kDjhuh; jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;Fk; Ex.R7 Mtzj;jpnyna kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl ntz;oa bjhifahf U:/11.70.002-? vd;w fzf;Fg;gl;oay; MdhJ vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpduhy; Mtzkha; Fwpaplg;gl;L ,Uf;fpd;w epiyapy; mjid cah; mjpfhhpfSk; Vw;Wf;bfhz;oUg;gjhy; nkny Fwpg;gplg;gl;l U:/11.70.002-? vd;w bjhifapid Ie;J jtizfshf gphpj;J Mf!;l; 2023. 31k; njjpf;Fs; kDjhuUf;F vjph;kDjhuh; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpLfpwJ/ mt;thW nkw;brhd;d bjhifapid brYj;j jtwpdhy; cj;jut[ Vw;gl;l ehspy; ,Ue;J 9 rjtPj tl;oa[ld; nrh;j;J kDjhuUf;F vjph;kDjhuh; bjhif brYj;j ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutplg;gl;lJ/"Therefore, the amount that has been ordered and directed to be paid to the respondent-workman is the amount that has been agreed by the petitioner-Management. Therefore, the petitioner-Management cannot take exception to implement the order of the Labour Court and now seek to set aside the order of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.161 of 2019. 7. In view of the above, I see no reasons to interfere with the order 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in C.P.No.161 of 2019 on 11.04.2023. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26.06.2025 Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Nods8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024P.T. ASHA, J, dsW.P.No.133 of 202426.06.20259/9

W.P.No.133 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 26.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P.No.133 of 2024and WMP.No.143 of 2024The Management of MetropolitanTransport Corporation (Chennai) LtdPallavan House, Pallavan SalaiChennai - 600 002.... PetitionerVs.S.Veeramani ... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award in C.P.No.161 of 2019 dated 11.04.2023 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.T.ChandrasekaranFor Respondent : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024ORDERChallenging the award passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.161 of2019, the Managment of the Transport Corporation is before this Court.2. The short facts are as follows :a)The respondent was appointed as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation on 21.01.1998. He was continuously absent for duty without permission from 03.11.2011 for more than 8 days. Thereafter, based on the report of the Branch Manager, Chrompet Depot dated 18.01.2011, a charge memo dated 28.01.2011 was served on him. Though he acknowledged the receipt, no explanation was given by him. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner, in which, the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the charges against the employee was proved. The Enquiry Officer also submitted his report dated 10.01.2012.b)The respondent once again was on unauthorized leave from 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 202403.01.2011 to 31.08.2012 i.e., for more than 595 days. Therefore, taking note of his earlier conduct, the petitioner-Management decided to dismiss him from services. However, in order to give him an opportunity, the second show cause notice along with enquiry report was sent to him on 17.02.2012, asking him to submit his explanation. To which, the respondent responded and submitted his explanation and also requested the Management to provide him with employment.c)Subsequently, by a letter dated 16.04.2012, the respondent had required the petitioner-workman to join duty, and the same was received by him on 21.04.2012. But the respondent did not join the duty. To give him a final chance, a publication in one Tamil daily 'Dhinaboomi' was published on 01.09.2012 requiring the respondent to meet the General Manager and to report duty. However, he did not make use of the opportunity and the Management having followed all the procedures established under law, ultimately, by an order dated 17.09.2012 had dismissed the respondent from service.d)The petitioner Management had proceeded to file approval 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024petition in A.P.No.252 of 2012, seeking approval for dismissal. Without considering the merits of the case, the authority had dismissed the approval petition, against which, the Management had filed W.P.No.33501 of 2015. This Court by an order dated 03.02.2016, had allowed the writ petition in part, in and by which, it confirmed the findings of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, and therefore, it sets aside the punishment of termination and remanded the matter back to the petitioner-Management to impose minor punishments, if any.e)Aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.33501 of 2015, the petitioner Management had preferred a review petition in Rev.Appl.No.74 of 2019, and the same was dismissed on 15.03.2019, wherein, the Court had suggested the petitioner and the workman to hold discussions with regard to backwages. f)The petitioner-Management had sent a letter to the workman on 29.11.2019 intimating him to join duty, however, no backwages would be paid to him.g)The respondent-workman instead of joining the duty, had filed a 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024computation petition in C.P.No.161 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.14,56,332/- towards his backwages, bonus, leave salary, dearness allowances etc., Thereafter, the respondent had joined the duty on 04.03.2020.h)The petitioner-Management had filed a counter to the said C.P.No.161 of 2019 alleging that the claim of backwages for the period October 2012 to November 2019, which works to Rs.13,39,364/- is not sustainable for the reason, the workman was dismissed from service on 24.01.2008, on account of his continued absence. That apart, the dearness allowances and city compensatory allowance would be awarded once in six months as per the wage settlement for the regularised employees and not for the respondent category. Therefore, the claim of the workman is bad in law.i)The Labour Court without considering the merits of the case, had computed the backwages and passed an award on 11.04.2023, directing the petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.11,70,002/- to the respondent-workman in five installments on 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024or before 31.10.2023, failing which, the Management was directed to pay the said amount with 9% interest from the date of its order.Challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 11.04.2023 in C.P.No.161 of 2019, the petitioner-Management is before this Court.3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management would submit that the petitioner-Management had called upon the respondent-workman to rejoin the duty on 29.11.2019, but the respondent-workman had not chosen to join the duty.4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would state that by virtue of the impugned order, the Labour Court had only directed the Management to pay the amount that has been agreed by the petitioner-Management and not the amount claimed by the workman.5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management has not refuted the said statement. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 20246. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. In the order dated 11.04.2023, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai had observed as follows :"vjph;kDjhuh; jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;Fk; Ex.R7 Mtzj;jpnyna kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl ntz;oa bjhifahf U:/11.70.002-? vd;w fzf;Fg;gl;oay; MdhJ vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpduhy; Mtzkha; Fwpaplg;gl;L ,Uf;fpd;w epiyapy; mjid cah; mjpfhhpfSk; Vw;Wf;bfhz;oUg;gjhy; nkny Fwpg;gplg;gl;l U:/11.70.002-? vd;w bjhifapid Ie;J jtizfshf gphpj;J Mf!;l; 2023. 31k; njjpf;Fs; kDjhuUf;F vjph;kDjhuh; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpLfpwJ/ mt;thW nkw;brhd;d bjhifapid brYj;j jtwpdhy; cj;jut[ Vw;gl;l ehspy; ,Ue;J 9 rjtPj tl;oa[ld; nrh;j;J kDjhuUf;F vjph;kDjhuh; bjhif brYj;j ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutplg;gl;lJ/"Therefore, the amount that has been ordered and directed to be paid to the respondent-workman is the amount that has been agreed by the petitioner-Management. Therefore, the petitioner-Management cannot take exception to implement the order of the Labour Court and now seek to set aside the order of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.161 of 2019. 7. In view of the above, I see no reasons to interfere with the order 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in C.P.No.161 of 2019 on 11.04.2023. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26.06.2025 Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Nods8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.133 of 2024P.T. ASHA, J, dsW.P.No.133 of 202426.06.20259/9