Madras High Court · 2025

W.P.No.3801 of 2021Prayer in W.M.P.To grant an order of Interim Stay of all further proceedings pursuant to an Award dated 07.11.2019 and made in C.P.No.149 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore pending disposal of the above writ petition.Appearance of Parties:For Petitioner : M/s. G.Muniratnam and V.Manisekaran, Advocates For Respondent : Ms.G.K.Dharshini, Advocate For M/s.R.Krishnasamy, V.Ajoy Khose, V.Porkodi, S.Manogaran and H.Nandhini, Advocates J U D G M E N T Heard. 2.The petitioner is the Co-operative Milk Producers Union of Nilgiris District. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P. No. 149 of 2011. By the said order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.4,34,205/- as dues payable to the respondent for the period from 17.04.1996 to 31.03.2011, along with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 20213.When the writ petition was listed for admission on 22.02.2021, this Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and granted an interim stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner-management shall pay 25% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically without further reference to the Court.4.Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 05.11.2024, it was directed to be placed before the Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. However, as the parties were unable to arrive at a settlement, the matter was returned for hearing before this Court.5.The records reveal that the respondent, along with 73 other workmen, invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Permanent Status Act”), through their trade union. Upon hearing both sides, the competent authority passed a final order dated 31.01.1992 in Case 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021No. 1 of 1992, holding that all 74 workers represented in the application were entitled to be conferred with permanent status. The names of the concerned workmen were enumerated in the annexure to the said order, wherein the respondent’s name appears at Serial No. 47. His date of entry into service was recorded as 17.04.1986, and it was found that he had completed 480 days of continuous service within a span of 24 calendar months as on 12.08.1987.6.However, as the respondent was not employed he raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer concerning his non-employment. The dispute was taken on file by the Labour Court, Coimbatore as I.D. No. 82 of 1995. After issuing notice to the parties and conducting a full-fledged trial, the Labour Court passed a final award dated 17.04.1996. In the operative portion of the award, the Labour Court held as follows:“bjh/rh/2 cj;jutpd; fPH; kDjhuu; epue;jpug;gLj;j ntz;Lbkd;w bjhHpw;rhiy cjtp gpujk Ma;thsu; cj;jut[g; gpwg;gj;jpUg;gjpdhy; mjd;go kDjhuUf;F gzp mspf;f ntz;Lk;/ kDjhuu; gzpf;F M$uhftpy;iy vd;W TwpaJ rupay;y/ kDjhuUf;F gzp bra;a mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwJ/ mt;thW mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;lJ gzp ePf;fj;jpw;F xg;ghdjhFk;/ vdnt ,e;j tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l Mtz';fis vy;yhk; rPu;Jhf;fpg; ghu;f;Fk;nghJ kDjhuUf;F bjh/rh/M/1 cj;jutpd;go epue;jukhd gzpaspf;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; jPu;khdpf;fpwJ/ 9/4/93f;Fg; gpwF kDjhuiu gzp bra;a mDkjpf;fhjjpdhy; kDjhuu; gzp bra;ahjjpdhYk; mtUf;F gpd;rk;gsk; fpilg;gjw;fpy;iy vd;W gpur;ridf;F Kot[ fhz;fpnwd;/4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021,Wjpapy; ,e;j kD xU gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gl;L kDjhuUf;F gpd;rk;gskpy;yhky; epue;jukhd gzp vjpu;kDjhuupdhy; mspf;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd;W jPu;g;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j;bjhif ,y;iy/ ”7.Aggrieved by the said award, the Management filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3756 of 1997. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 23.08.2007. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order, this Court held as follows:“8. In the light of the above, there is no substance in the contention of the writ petitioner that the first respondent did not work for 480 days in two calendar years or 240 days in a calendar year. There was ample evidence before the Labour Court to come to the conclusion and therefore this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with such findings of fact, based on evidence when there is no apparent error on the face of the award. 9. The other contention raised by the writ petitioner is that the first respondent was convicted under section 309 of I.P.C, therefore, he was disqualified under Section 149 of the The Co-operative Societies Act 1983 to maintain the petition before the Labour Court. I am unable to accept this contention also. A perusal of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam on 3.6.1993 would show that as the accused / first respondent is the first time accused, he was warned and released under section 3 of Supervision of Criminals Act. 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021Therefore, I find no merits in the above writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.” 8.During the pendency of the writ petition, and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent was paid last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for the period from 01.10.1999 to 01.10.2007, amounting to a total sum of Rs. 1,68,000/-. It is further stated that the Management preferred a writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge; however, the said appeal was yet to be numbered and is stated to be pending at the stage of serial registration as W.A. SR No. 77559 of 2007. No further particulars regarding the progress or status of the said writ appeal have been furnished by the Management. In the absence of any such information, it may be reasonably presumed that the appeal no longer survives.9.It is claimed that the respondent had addressed several representations to the petitioner-management seeking reinstatement into service. However, the petitioner failed to implement the award. In its reply dated 15.07.2016, the petitioner informed the respondent that reinstatement was not possible in view of the claim petition filed by him. The records further reveal that the respondent had filed three claim petitions before the Labour Court, namely, C.P. Nos. 149 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021of 2011, 88 of 2016, and 34 of 2018—the present petition—seeking appropriate reliefs.10.The respondent also lodged a complaint alleging non-implementation of the award, which was taken up for hearing on multiple occasions by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor. However, these proceedings did not culminate in any effective relief. In C.P. No. 34 of 2018, the respondent sought wages for the period from September 2016 to April 2018, amounting to Rs. 5,76,460/-, in addition to claims towards Pongal gift, minimum bonus, and leave salary. The aggregate of all claims raised by the respondent was Rs. 6,55,541/. Pursuant to notice issued by the Labour Court, the petitioner-management filed a counter statement dated 30.08.2019. In the said counter, the petitioner admitted the order passed by the authority under the Permanent Status Act and also conceded that the respondent’s name appeared among the 74 workers listed therein. In paragraph 6 of the counter statement, the petitioner stated as follows:“The respondent submits that, on receipt of the order of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, passed a resolution in the personnel committee meeting held on 12.08.1993 to regularize the service of the casual laborers. Accordingly the respondents vide their proceedings dated 22.09.1993 regularised 101casual 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021laborers with effect from 01.09.1993 on a consolidated salary of Rs.800/- per month. However the petitioner’s name did not figure in the list and hence the services of the petitioner was not regularised.”11.Further, in paragraph 7 of the counter statement, the petitioner-management stated as follows:“It is submitted that the respondent has sent a representation to the Government of Tamil Nadu, through Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development to regularize casual labourers employed in the union. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 13.04.1994 passed orders to regularize the services of irregular appointments of casual labourers without consulting employment exchange, employed in various District Co-operative Milk Producers Union. At pages 5,6 and 7 of the G.O, the list of casual workers to be regularized in the respondent union figures. Again the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list.” 12.The statement made by the management in paragraph 6 of the counter is rather disconcerting. Having unequivocally admitted that the respondent’s name appeared among the 74 workmen who were directed to be conferred permanent status by the authority under the Permanent Status Act, and having resolved to implement the said order, it is unclear how the management could subsequently exclude the respondent from the list of employees proposed to be 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021made permanent. When the respondent approached the Labour Court and secured an award in his favour— the operative portion of which has already been extracted above— and when the said award was subsequently confirmed by this Court, it is indeed surprising that the petitioner could make the following statement in paragraph 8 of the counter filed before the Labour Court:“It is further submitted that, while the matter stood thus, the petitioner did turn up for work to the respondent union with effect from 09.04.1993 and raised a dispute before the Honourable Court in I.D.No.82 of 1995 alleging termination of service. The Honourable Court after hearing the parties passed an award on 17.04.1996 and in the same directed the respondent to provide permanent employment to the petitioner without back wages. The Honourable Court did not award continuity of service or attendant benefits to the petitioner.” [Emphasis added] 13.It is true that by the award dated 17.04.1996 in I.D. No. 82 of 1995, the Labour Court did not grant back wages to the respondent on the ground that he had not actually performed any duty. However, the Labour Court did not, at any point, deny the benefit of continuity of service. At the risk of repetition, paragraph 6 of the award—already extracted above—merits reproduction once again:“bjh/rh/2 cj;jutpd; fPH; kDjhuu; epue;jug;gLj;j ntz;Lbkd;w 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021bjhHpw;rhiy cjtp gpujk Ma;thsu; cj;jut[g; gpwg;gj;jpUg;gjpdhy; mjd;go kDjhuUf;F gzp mspf;f ntz;Lk;/ kDjhuu; gzpf;F M$uhftpy;iy vd;W TwpaJ rupay;y/ kDjhuUf;F gzp bra;a mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwJ/ mt;thW mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;lJ gzp ePf;fj;jpw;F xg;ghdjhFk;/ vdnt ,e;j tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l Mtz';fis vy;yhk; rPu;Jhf;fpg; ghu;f;Fk;nghJ kDjhuUf;F bjh/rh/M/1 cj;jutpd;go epue;jukhd gzpaspf;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; jPu;khdpf;fpwJ/ 9/4/93f;Fg; gpwF kDjhuiu gzp bra;a mDkjpf;fhjjpdhy; kDjhuu; gzp bra;ahjjpdhYk; mtUf;F gpd;rk;gsk; fpilg;gjw;fpy;iy vd;W gpur;ridf;F Kot[ fhz;fpnwd;/ ”[Emphasis added] 14.Once the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement pursuant to the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories dated 31.01.1992 (marked as Ex.P1), it necessarily follows that such reinstatement should relate back to the date on which he was deemed to have been made permanent by the authority under the Permanent Status Act, namely, with effect from 12.08.1987. It is not open to the petitioner-management to unilaterally interpret or misapply the provisions of the said order or the award in favour of the respondent. Nor can the petitioner seek refuge under the plea of having implemented some other government order relating to regularisation, particularly when the respondent had already obtained a binding statutory declaration of permanent status.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 202115.Insofar as the merits of the claim are concerned, the petitioner-management, once again, made the following averment in paragraph 10 of the counter statement in C.P No. 34 of 2018:“….The respondent submits that a plain reading of the award will evidence the fact that the award is silent about continuity of service and attendant benefits to the petitioner. The Honourable Court has also not granted any back wages to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any difference in salary for the period 01.09.2016 to 31.04.2018 as claimed by him in the petition. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to Pongal Gift, Minimum Bonus and Leave Salary, since the Honourable Court has not granted continuity of service nor attendant benefits.” 16.The stand taken by the petitioner-management before the Labour Court is wholly untenable and directly contrary to the order passed by the Permanent Status Authority as well as the award of the Labour Court, which stood confirmed by this Court when challenged by the management. Although the petitioner raised a faint objection regarding the maintainability of the claim petition, contending the absence of a pre-existing right, the Labour Court rejected the said plea and rightly held that the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable. It further held that there was no 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021undue delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the Labour Court for computation of back wages.17.As regards the proof of wages, the Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the management. Despite the respondent filing I.A. No. 569 of 2017 seeking a direction to the management to produce the wage registers for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2011, as well as the service registers of two similarly placed workers—which application was allowed—the management failed to produce the said records.18.The Labour Court accepted the evidence adduced by the respondent and proceeded to compute back wages based on the entries found in the service registers marked as Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. While the Labour Court declined the respondent’s claims under the heads of bonus and other ancillary benefits, it computed the wages for the period from 17.04.1996 to 31.03.2011 at a total sum of Rs. 6,02,205/-. After giving due credit to the amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- already paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of the writ petition, the net amount payable was determined as Rs. 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 20214,34,205/-. The petitioner-management has once again approached this Court challenging the said order, without any tenable grounds.19.The contentions advanced in the affidavit are a verbatim reiteration of the counter statement earlier filed before the Labour Court, which were already duly considered by the Labour Court and rightly rejected. The argument that the respondent did not report for duty after 09.04.1993 deserves to be rejected outright. It was the petitioner-management that persistently resisted the respondent’s claims by challenging every order passed in his favour. Even now, the management continues to misinterpret the award granted to the respondent. The conduct of the petitioner Milk Producers Union—an entity functioning under the administrative control of the Co-operative Department—is highly regrettable and does not inspire confidence. Such conduct, bordering on deliberate defiance, cannot be countenanced by this Court. Judicial proceedings are not to be treated as a game of chance.20.In the result, the writ petition in W.P. No. 3801 of 2021 stands dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent towards legal 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021fees. If, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the respondent has already received 25% of the amount awarded, he shall be entitled to recover the balance amount from the petitioner-management in accordance with law. 29.05.2025ayNCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order / Non-speaking OrderTo The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, Jay14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3801 of 2021Pre-Delivery Judgment made in W.P.No. 3801 of 2021and W.M.P.No.4337 of 2021 29.05.202515/15