High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:11-4-2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P.Nos.16757 and 16639 of 19981. A. Periyakaruppan2. P. Mohaideen Batcha3. R. Pitchai4. A.S. Mariyamkapoor5. R. Muthu6. S. Ramalingam7. A. Innasi Muthu8. R.M.P. Somasundaram9. V. Venkatesan10.M. Swaminathan11.G. Arumugam12.V. Lakshminarayanan13.A. Arokiyaswamy14.C. Kanagarajan15.S. Sivagananam16.K. Jalal17.K. Pandi18.S. Natarajan19.V. Kannan20.V. Mahalingam21.S. Rejendran22.A.R. Ramakrishnan23.P. Subramanian... Petitioners in W.P.No.16757 of1998 and respondents 1 to 23 in W.P.No.16639 of1998vs1. The District Collector, Sivaganga2. Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board R.P.K. Circle Weekly Market, Sivaganga District3. Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Rural Water Supply Division (near Bus Stand), Sivaganga4. Commissioner Kannakkudi Panchayat Union https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sivagangai District5. Commissioner Devakottai Panchayat Union Sivagangai District6. Deputy Secretary to Government Labour & Employment Department... Respondents inW.P.NO.16757 of 1998W.P.NO.16639 of 19981. Executive Engineer, T W A D S.R. Circle Sivagangai R.W.S.Division Sivagangai District2. Superintendent Engineer T W A D (Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Sivaganga.... petitionersvsPresiding Officer,Labour Court, SivagangaDeputy Secretary to the GovernmentLabour and Employment DepartmentChennai-9The Collector of Pasumpon DistrictSivagangaiThe CommissionerKannakkudi Panchayat UnionSivagangai District... Respondents 24 to 27 in W.P.NO.16639 of 1998Prayer in W.P.NO.16657 of 1998:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the firstrespondent to recover the total amount of Rs.4,28,484/- as perG.O.Ms.No.(D) No.613 dated 8.7.1996 from the fourth and fifthrespondent and realise the same to the petitioners with an interest @16% p.a.Prayer in W.P.No.16639 of 1998 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records in G.O.(D) No.613 dated 8.7.1996 passed by the DeputySecretary, Labour and Employment, 25th respondent pursuant toC.P.Nos.130 and 150 of1993 on the file of the Labour Court,Sivagangai dated 13.3.96 and 14.3.1996 respectively and quash thesame.For petitioners inW.P.No.16639/98and Respondent to 2 & 3in WP 16757/98:Ms.Sudharsana SunderFor Petitioner 1 to 23 in W.P.No.16757 of 1998 and Respondents 1 to 23in WP 16639/98:Mr.S. ArunachalamFor respondents 25 to 27 in W.P.NO.16639 of 1998and 1, 4, 5 & 6 in WP 16757/98 :Ms.Geetha Thamaraiselvan (Government Advocate) COMMON ORDERHeard both sides. The first Writ Petition in W.P.No.16757 of1998 is filed by one A. Periyakaruppan and 22 other workmen seekingfor a direction to the first respondent, the District Collector,Sivaganga to recover the total amount of Rs.4,28,484/- as perG.O.Ms.No.(D) No.613 dated 8.7.1996 from the fourth and fifthrespondents and realise the same and give it to the petitioners withan interest @ 16% p.a. The said G.O came to be issued in terms ofSec.33-C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enabling the Governmentto recover any amount computed by the Labour Court as an arrear ofLand Revenue. 2. As a sequel to that proceeding, Executive Engineer, TamilNadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Sivagangai R.W.S. Division hasfiled the writ petition challenging the said G.O and the order inclaim petition in the second writ petition. 3. A perusal of the orders of the Labour Court it is clearly seenthat the Labour Court dealt with the rival submissions including thewritten arguments supplied by Tamil Nadu Water Supply Board. Eventhough the order of the Labour Court in C.P.NOs.130 and 150 of 1993was under challenge, the certified copies of the said orders were notenclosed along with the writ petition and what was enclosed is onlythe gist of the order containing the computation made by the LabourCourt. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on theground that the petitioners had failed to challenge the order byproducing certified copies of the orders under challenge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Mr.S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the workmenproduced certified copies of the orders, wherein, the Labour Courthad directed grant of wages for the workmen for the festival andweekly off availed by them. If the workmen in the present case canproduce the certified copies, there is no reason why the TWAD Boardcannot produce the certified copies at the time of admission of thewrit petition. The attitude of the TWAD Board in producing the gistorder supplied free of cost in terms of Rule 54 of Tamil NaduIndustrial Disputes Rules, 1958 cannot be accepted. This Court whiledispensing justice in a writ jurisdiction more particularly for theissuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari cannot deal with amatter without the order of the Court under challenge before it.5. However, Ms.Sudharsana Sunder learned counsel appearing forthe TWAD Board submits that even de hors the order, the workman isnot eligible in getting the payment as ordered by the Labour Court.She made two submissions in that regard. The first was thatsubsequent to a Sec. 12(3) settlement, the workmen were disqualifiedfrom claiming any amount on account of their reinstatement.Secondly, the liability to make payment falls with the Local body andnot with the TWAD Board especially when the scheme was entrusted tothe Local body. 6. Though this Court is not called upon to decide these twoissues, which were never raised before the Labour Court, yet with aview to keep the record in order, the same are dealt with. It must bestated Sec. 12(3) settlement, over which heavy reliance is placed.relating to reinstatement of workman without any back wages, the samecannot take away the rights of the workmen the right which accrued interms of Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment Establishment ( Nationaland Festival Holidays Act), wherein employers are obligated to paywages for the festival and national holidays mentioned therein.Therefore, the first submission has no merits.7. The second submission relates to entrustment of the scheme tothe local body. It must be stated that the Water Supply Boardexecutes schemes which are entrusted to the local bodies. Theworkmen are also sent along with the scheme and until such time, thelocal bodies absorbs those workmen, it can only be deemed that theyare the employees of the Board.8. In the present case, since the schemes have been continued tobe maintained by the TWAD board and therefore, the liability to makepayment in respect of the workmen, and they continue to receivepayment only from the Board there is no jurisdictional error in theLabour Court's Order directing the TWAD Board to make payments interms of law.9. In the present case, the computation order was passed as earlyas 13.3.1996 and it is only after the workmen approached theGovernment for the issuance of the revenue recovery certificate underSec.33(C)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, (which itself was issued on8.7.1996), the petitioner has filed the writ petitions after a periodof two years and even on the ground of delay and laches the writpetitions are also liable to be rejected. Accordingly, these writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. 10. The Management is hereby directed to comply with the order ofthe Labour Court within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of copy of this Order.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.srTo1. The District Collector, Sivaganga2. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board R.P.K. Circle Weekly Market, Sivaganga District3. The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Rural Water Supply Division (near Bus Stand), Sivaganga4. The Commissioner Kannakkudi Panchayat Union Sivagangai District5. Commissioner Devakottai Panchayat Union Sivagangai District6. Deputy Secretary to Government Labour & Employment Department7. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sivaganga.+ 1 CC to Mr. S.Arunachalam Advocate SR NO.20967+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.21079. W.P.Nos.16757 & 16639 of 1998BV(CO)JJM(21/04/08)