High Court · 2025

W.P.No.26600 of 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.26600 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 20081. The Management of Genau Extrusions Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, No. 37, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.2. The Manager (Finance and Administration) Genau Extrusions Limited, Site No.1, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase II, Hosur- 635 126.... Petitioners Vs.1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai – 600 104.2. T.S.Gnanavel ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for the records relating to the Award dated 28.03.2008 in I.D.No. 248 of 2003 of the first respondent, quash the Award. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rangesh for Mr.JayaramFor R1 : Labour CourtFor R2 : Mr.S.Gokul for Mrs.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan ORDERThis writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 28.03.2008 made in I.D.No. 248 of 2003. 2. The brief factual background in which this writ petition arises is that the second respondent workman was employed as a driver in the unit of the petitioner management at Hosur. He was driving a van carrying raw materials to the unit. In the year 1998, the workman was transferred to one of the sister concerns, namely Stahilform Technik Private Limited. From there, in the year 2002, he was transferred to the head office at Chennai. The workman protested and after sending a legal notice, reported for duty at Chennai on 23.05.2002. Subsequently, the company took a decision that it was facing financial difficulties and as a cost-cutting measure, all the officials of the company were requested to drive their own car and it was decided to abandon 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008the post of drivers. Pursuant to the said measure, while retrenching similarly placed drivers, the workman was also retrenched from service on 29.06.2002. The requisites of Section 25F have been duly complied with. The workman also received and encashed the cheque. Thereafter, he raised the dispute. After conciliation failed, his claim was taken on file as I.D.No.248 of 2003. The claim was resisted by the management, which submitted that only because of the policy decision to do away with the post of driver, the workman was retrenched from service and that compensation and all benefits had been duly given. The Labour Court considered the issue and held that the reason for retrenchment as projected by the management did not appear to be correct and that the workman had been terminated for patently false reasons due to victimization, as he had protested against the transfer order. After holding so, the Labour Court granted the relief of payment of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the workman. Aggrieved by this, the management is before this Court.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management would submit that the exercise carried out by the management is retrenchment and 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008since the management has followed Section 25F by granting one month’s pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity etc., the scope of inquiry by the Labour Court is very limited. The finding of the Labour Court that the workman was retrenched by way of victimization cannot be sustained. The learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to similar retrenchment orders issued in respect of other drivers, would argued that this is not a case where the workman has been singled out. All the drivers have been retrenched from service. As a matter of fact, even the vehicles provided to the official were phased out and the officials were only requested to drive their own Maruti 800 cars. That too only one Maruti 800 vehicle alone was there for the management. When the work itself become redundant and the decision was made as the cost-cutting measure, the action of the management cannot be termed as malafide or victimisation. Therefore, the findings of the Labour Court are perverse and this Court should interfere in the finding.4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman would submit that it can be seen that when the management initially transferred the workman to a sister concern, that itself was without any 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008enabling orders in the standing orders and the management cannot make deputation without the consent of the workman. That itself was only by way of victimization. To further victimise the workman, the workman was again transferred to Chennai to the Head Office, where the decision was made to terminate his employment. The workman was aggrieved by the transfer order and had already sent a legal notice, to which a reply legal notice was also sent. Without prejudice to his right to contest the transfer order, the workman joined duty. As a matter of fact, it can be seen that the workman has raised the grounds relating to the transfer also. Therefore, he would submit that the order of the labour Court does not require any interference. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 6. On perusal of the counter filed by the management, it is stated that even though the workman was appointed in the year 1997, his attitude became lethargic and he was repeatedly late for work. Under these circumstances, he was transferred to the sister concern. It is only from the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008sister concern that he was further transferred to Chennai.7. When all the above facts are taken cumulatively and in the proximity the events that occurred, it cannot be totally ruled out that instead of taking disciplinary action, the workman was shunted out to the sister concern and then to Chennai. When the workman was not initially recruited to drive the personal cars of the Managing staff and was retrenched solely for this reason, it can be seen that when his original job of driving the van carrying raw materials was still available. The finding of the Labour Court after a detailed appreciation of the evidence that the reasons for retrenchment appears to be incorrect, cannot be said to be perverse or interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court also takes into account the ultimate relief that is granted by the Labour Court which was the payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-8. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed on the following terms:-(i) The Award of the Labour Court dated 28.03.2008 made in I.D.No.248 of 2003 is upheld.(ii) Time is granted for the management to pay the said 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of the website-uploaded copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. If the amount is paid within the said time, no further interest need to be paid to the workman, if not, the amount shall be paid with further inteset at 9% per annum from today. (iii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 20.01.2025Neutral Citation: Yes/NonslToThe Presiding Officer,Principal Labour Court, Chennai – 600 104.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26600 of 2008D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.nslW.P.No.26600 of 200820.01.20258/8