Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.2220 of 2021ORDERThe Transport Corporation seeks to challenge the award passed in I.D.No.23 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore.2. The brief facts which have culminated in filing of the writ petition are herein below set out :a)One Dharmaraj, who is the member of the respondent-Trade Union had joined the service of the petitioner-Corporation on 17.10.1989 in its Tiruppur Branch-I as a Driver. b)In the year 1986, a settlement was entered into between the Trade Union and the respondent-Corporation. The prescribed qualifying service for the review period are as follows :➢First Settlement 1986 - Qualifying service for review benefits (6+8+10 years)➢ Second Settlement 2011 - Qualifying service for review benefits (6+7+8+8+3 years)➢ Third Settlement 2015 - Qualifying service for review 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021benefits (6+7+7+7+5 years)c)Accordingly, the first review benefits was sanctioned to Dharmaraj on 01.11.1996. The second review benefits was sanctioned to him on 01.11.2004, on the basis of the qualifying service of 6+8+10 years. d)Alleging that the review benefits were not sanctioned to him by making proper fixation of qualifying service, he approached the Trade Union, the respondent herein.e)The respondent-Union espousing the case of Dharmaraj, addressed the dispute to the Government. The Government vide its G.O.(D) No.345 Labour and Employment (D1) Department dated 25.05.2025 had referred the issue for adjudication before the II Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, who in turn, had taken up the dispute on its file in I.D.No.23 of 2018.f)The Labour Court had allowed the industrial dispute by an order dated 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the Transport Corporation is before this Court.3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 20213. The Trade Union who is the petitioner before the Labour Court, had contended as follows :a) As per 1986 settlement, Dharamaraj was sanctioned with first review benefit on 01.11.1996 and the second review benefit on 01.11.2004, on the basis of the qualifying service of 6+8+10 years. However, as per 2011 settlement, Dharamaj ought to have been awarded with second review benefits on 01.11.2023; third review benefits from 01.11.2011 and fourth review benefits from 01.11.2019. Further, as per 2015 settlement, the third review benefits of Dharmaraj should be calculated from 01.11.2010 and fourth review benefits from 01.11.2017. But the Management had not followed the prescribed procedure of 2011-settlement and 2015-settlement, instead it calculated the review benefits on the basis of 1986 settlement, which according to the Union, is not proper. Therefore, the Management has not sanctioned the review benefit to Dharmaraj by making proper fixation of qualifying service . b)It is the contention of the petitioner-Union that the Management-Corporation with a view to victimise the Union members, has been 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021deliberately delaying the refixation of review benefits to its workers.c)The petitioner-Management had fixed the basic pay of Dharmaraj at Rs.41,800/- which has to be increased to Rs.44,300/-. Therefore, on account of this difference, the terminal benefits due to Dharmaraj would be severely affected and he would sustain heavy monetary loss. d)The Transport Corporation was guilty of unfair labour practice. The Transport Corporation is liable to provide review benefits to the workman as per the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, entered into between the Transport Corporation and the representatives of the Trade Union. e)The Trade Union would further submit that when review benefits are postponed, the workman has a right to be informed about it in writing, giving reasons thereof. However, in the instant case no such information was given by the Transport Corporation in writing. f)Denying the review benefits to Dharmaraj is totally against law, and it had caused grave monetary loss to him.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021g)Further, it is contended that the review benefits have to be paid within three months from the date of eligibility. The Trade Union had sent several representations to the Transport Corporation, which were all in vain. Hence, they raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking to direct the Transport Corporation to refix the period of second review benefit and pay the third review benefits to Dharmaraj.4.1 The Transport Corporation has filed its counter to the claim4 petition filed by the Trade Union. In the counter statement, the review benefits sanctioned to Dharmaraj is tabulated as below :i) Kjy;fl;l Cjpa kWeph;zak;::-gzpapy; nrh;e;j ehs;17/10/1989Kjy; fl;l Ma;t[f;fhyk; (6 Mz;Lfs;)617/10/1995jFjpapy;yh gzp ehl;fs; (25 ehl;fs;)25/00/0000jFjp bgWk; fhyhz;L01/02/1996ii) ,uz;lhk;fl;l Cjpa kWeph;zak;:-Kjy;fl;l Ma;t[ tH';fg;gl;l ehs;01/08/1996,uz;lhk; fl;l Ma;t[f;fhyk; (8 Mz;Lfs;)86/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021Kjy;fl;l Ma;t[ tH';fg;gl;l ehs;01/08/1996jFjp bgWk; ehs;01/08/2004jFjpapy;yh gzp ehl;fs; (4 ehl;fs;)04/00/0000jFjp bgWk; ehs;05/08/2004jFjp bgWk; fhyhz;L01/11/2004ii) K:d;whk;fl;l Cjpa kWeph;zak;:-,uz;lhk; fl;l Ma;t[01/11/2004K:d;whk; fl;l Ma;t[f;fhyk; (7 Mz;Lfs;)701/11/2011jFjpapy;yh gzp ehl;fs; (8 ehl;fs;)08/00/000009/11/2011jFjp bgWk; fhyhz;L01/02/2012It is also averred in the counter that at the time of review of refixation of pay to Dharamaraj on 01.02.1996, he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment till 31.07.1996. Therefore, he was given increment only on 01.08.1996. The first review benefit was also given on the very same date. That apart, as per the settlement dated 01.09.2010, the qualifying service for review benefits was fixed as 6+7+8+8+3 years. Though the second review benefit of Dharmaraj was due on 01.11.2004, it was advanced to 01.11.2003, and the monetary benefits were paid to him on the said date itself. During the year 2012, the review was fixed on 01.02.2012, however at that period two cases were pending against 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021Dharmaraj, viz., one from 04.06.2009 to 20.08.2013 and the second case from 28.02.2013 to 28.08.2013. Accordingly, the third review benefit was given to him only from 01.11.2013. Further, the said Dharmaraj would be qualified for the fourth review benefits after the completion of 7 years of service from 01.11.2013 i.e., fourth review has to be fixed only on 01.11.2020. Since Dharmaraj was due to retire on 29.02.2020, he was not entitled to the fourth review. 4.2 It is also alleged in the counter that as per Rule 61 of the Common Service Rule, the LLP days and punishments imposed on the workers are taken into consideration, while granting review benefits. Therefore it is incorrect to state that as per the settlements under Sec.12.(3) of I.D. Act, the review benefits have to be given on the basis of qualifying service period of 6+7+7+7+5 years. It is also alleged that work performance, efficiency and other aspects also has to be considered at the time of granting review benefits. Review benefits are given quarterly in a year i.e., on the first day of February, May, August and November, after the ACR reports of the workers are reviewed by a Committee, and at that time no disciplinary proceedings should be pending as against the workers. It is also contended 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021that the Dharmaraj without raising any objection and having received three benefits, has now filed the claim petition making false averments, which cannot be entertained and hence, they pray for dismissal. 5.1 The learned Judge of the Labour Court had raised the following points for consideration :1)Whether the respondent management is entitled to stop / withhold / postpone the review benefits?2)Whether the demand of the petitioner Union to direct the respondent management to grant third review benefits to its member Mr.A.Dharmaraj (driver) from 01.02.2011, is justified?3)Whether this reference has to be allowed?4)To what other relief, the petitioner Unioin is entitled to?5.2 During enquiry, exhibits Exs.W-1 to Exs.W-3 were marked by the Union and Ext.M-1 to Ext.M4 were marked by the Transport, however no oral evidence was adduced by both sides.5.3 The learned Judge proceed to allow the reference and held that the 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021demand of the Union to grant third review benefit to Dharmaraj with effect from 01.02.2011 was justified and directed the Management to pay the same.6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner-Management is before this Court.7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court would show that the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been entered into between the respondent-Union and the petitioner-Management, which has been exhibited as Exs.W1 to Exs.W3. Clause 17 of Ext.W1 settlement dated 25.09.1986 deals with the Longevity Pay Scheme and sub-clause (a) therein would prescribe that the first review benefit would accrue after completing 6 years of qualifying service, which would reckon from the date of daily wages or as trainees, i.e., the first level in a working group, and this would be extended also to the employees holding the posts in other categories like security guards, sweepers etc., Further, Clause 18 of settlement dated 30.09.1992, enumerates that for the purpose of review, the number of days worked on 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021daily rate shall be included, and wherever the review benefit is postponed, the concerned employee has to be advised in writing the reasons thereof. 8.1 This apart Clause 4 of Ex.W-2 settlement dated 22.01.2011 would state as follows :“Ma;t[ gyd; (Review benefit),JfhWk; 6+8+10 Mz;Lfs; ,ilbtspf;F xU Ma;t[gyd; tPjk; 5% Cjpa cah;t[ tH';fp K:d;W Ma;t[ gyd;fs; tH';fg;gl;lJ/ mjid khw;wp 6+7+8+8+3 Mz;Lfs; ,ilbtspapy; Ma;t[ gyd; Kjy; K:d;W Ma;tpw;F 5 rjtpfpjk; vdt[k; mLj;J ,uz;L Ma;tpw;F 3 rjtpfpj cah;t[ vdt[k; tH';fp 5 Ma;t[ gyd;fs; tH';fg;gLk;/ Ma;t[ gyd; tH';fg;gLk; nghJ gzpf;F nrh;e;j ehs; Kjy; Mz;Lfs; fzf;fplg;glntz;Lk;/ Fwpg;ghf 2001?k; Mz;L Kjy; 2006?k; Mz;L tiu gzpf;fku;j;j;gl;lth;fSf;F mth;fs; epue;jug;gLj;jg;gl;l njjpia fzf;fpy; bfhs;shky; Mz;L fzf;if Ma;t[g;gyDf;F fzf;fpy; bfhs;s xg;g[f; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/jpUj;jpaikf;fg;gl;l Ma;t[ gyd;go gad;bgWk; bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F 01/09/2010 Kjy; Ma;t[ gyd; tH';fp mog;gil Cjpak; jpUj;jpaikf;fg;gLk;/”8.2 Likewise Clause 3 of Ex.W-3 settlement dated 13.04.2015 would read as follows :11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021Ma;t[ gyd;“ (Review benefit)Ke;ija xg;ge;jj;jpd;go eilKiwapy; cs;s 6+7+8+8+3 tUl';fs; ,ilbtspf;F xU Ma;t[ gyd; vd;gJ 6+7+7+7+5 Mz;Lfs; ,ilbtspapy; xU Ma;t[ gyd; vd khw;wpaikf;fg;gLk;/ ,g;g[jpa Kiw Ma;t[ gyd;go 01/09/2013?f;Fg; gpd;dh; Ma;t[ gyd; bgwt[s;s jFjpa[s;s gzpahsh;fSf;F 6+7+7+7+5 Mz;Lfs; vd;w ,ilbtspapy; Ma;t[ gyd;fs; tH';fg;gLk;/ Vw;fdnt 01/09/2010?f;Fg; gpd;dh; ( 6+7+8+8+3) Mz;Lfs; vd;w Kiwg;go Ma;t[ gyd; bgw;w gzpahsh;fSf;F mLj;j Ma;t[ gyd; g[jpa Kiwg;go 6+7+7+7+5 Mz;Lfs; vd;w mog;gilapy; tH';fg;gLk;/ ,jpy; Kjy; K:d;W Ma;t[fSf;F 5% Cjpa cah;t[k;. mLj;j ,uz;L Ma;tpw;F 3% Cjpa cah;t[k; tH';fp tUtjpy; ve;jtpjkhd khw;wKk; ,y;iy/ ”9. These two settlements would clarify that review benefits were payable based on the length of service. The settlements do not impose a condition for granting of review benefits. In addition, the service condition of the workman is governed by the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders is marked as Ext.M4 , and Clause 15 therein would describe the various types of punishments for misconduct. The postponement of review benefits has not been described as punishment in Clause 15 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner-Management has marked Ext.M2, which is a copy of Clause-12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 202161 of the Common Service Rules, and Ext.M3, the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.1373, Transport Department, dated 02.12.1985. Ext.M3 states that the Common Service Rules would apply to all the employees except to the workers who are governed by Standing Orders. In the settlements that have been entered into, there is no reference of Common Service Rules. When it is only the length of service that has to be taken into consideration, the refusal on the part of the petitioner-Management to grant review benefits is totally unjustified. Further in the event of the petitioner-Management withholding the review benefits, the workman is entitled to be informed about the same with reasons. Admittedly, in the instant case, no reasons have been given by the Management for the postponement of review benefits to Dharmaraj. That apart, the service register of the Dharmaraj which has been produced before the Labour Court as Ext.M1, does not reflect the review benefits have been granted/postponed. 10. Further, the arguments of the petitioner-Corporation, is on the basis of the Common Service Rules, wherein it has been stated that the review benefits would be given, subject to work performance, however, the Standing Orders which governs the service conditions does not contain any 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021such Rule. That apart, the settlements entered into between the parties, also do not make any reference to the Common Service Rules. 11. Even going by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation with reference to the postponement of the review benefits, a mere perusal of the dates on which the case has been taken up for consideration, would clearly indicate that the postponement of the review benefits is not in tune with punishment imposed. 12. Therefore, the order passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.23 of 2018, dated 29.11.2019, is very much in order, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.07.2025 Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Nods14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2220 of 2021P.T. ASHA, J, dsW.P.No.2220 of 202122.07.202515/15