High Court · 2025

C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.01.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIC.M.A.No.1777 of 2021 andC.M.P.No.9494 of 20211. The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corporation , Puducherry2.The Branch ManagerEmployees State Insurance Corporation Puducherry. ... AppellantsVs.1. Leo Silvester Felician2.N.Manivanna3.Arogyadas Thangaraj4.N.Lalbahadur5.U.Ramesh6.T.Ambalavanan7.R.Vinothkumar8.R.Sudhagaran9.N.Lakshminarayanan10. S.Arivazhagan11.K.Venkata Raman12.S. Gangadharan13.R.Rajesh14.L.Sundaramoorthy15.L.Vetriselvan16.S.Sundaravelu17.P.Sivakumar18.K.Thegarajan19.S.Mohanraj1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 202120.M.T. Veeramani21.S.Shanmukgaraja22.K.Palanivel23.R.Sugumaran24.A.C. Kumar25.P.Pounraj26.A.Venkatesaperumal27.K.Maheskumar28.E.Jeyakumar29.A.Viswanathan30.D.Dhamodharan31.Basudev Behera32.P.Ragupathi33.P.Balaraman34.G.Muthukumaran35.G.Velmurugan36.R.Arumugam37.M.Kannan38.D.Lashmanan39.M.Balachandran40.S.Anandhan41.N.Balasubramanian42.D.Sakthivel43.P.Karthikeyan44.K.Dhandapani45.K.Sathiyaprakash46.T.K.Rajendra47.D.Satish Kumar48.E.Willingston Kiruba Kumar49.S.Sivakumar50.A.Kuppusamy51.T.Vijay Ananth52.J.Sasikumar53.M.G.Ramesh54.G.Karthi55.Jaleel Ahammad56.C.Murugavel2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 202157.M.Balasubramani58.N.Suresh59.A.Dhanusuraman60.R.Eswaran61.D.Mathivanan62.R.Madhavan63.T.S.Venkatesan64.P.Danabalan65.M.Manikandan66.M.Vijayakumar67.M.M.Perumal68.A.Dharmarajan69.R.Ramachandran70.S.Ranjith Kumar71.T.Prabhu72.D.Ramamoorthy73.P.Gopinath74.R.Karunakaran75.S.Angamuthu76.Chukka Pushpa RaoRep By L.Sundaramoorthy, President, M/s Suzlon Thozhilalargal Sangam (CITU) Having Office At No.32 Bharathi Mill Thittu, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry77.The Managing DirectorM/s Suzlon Energy Ltd Unit IV, Thiruvandarkoil , Puducherry ... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order passed in EIOP No.11 of 2017 dated 26.02.2020, on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court (Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Puducherry), Puducherry.For AppellantsFor Respondents::Mr.S.P.SrinivasanMr.P.P.Thiruneelakandan for R1 to R76No appearance for R773/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021*****JUDGMENTThe above appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed in EIOP No.11 of 2017 dated 26.02.2020, on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court (Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Puducherry), Puducherry.2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposing of this appeal are as follows:The respondents 1 to 76 herein were working under the management of respondent No.77 / management. Whileso, on 23.07.2012, the management had declared lockout on 23.07.2012. The management filed application for closure and lockout were challenged before the Labour Court, Puducherry in ID(L).No.15 and 22 of 2013. During the pendency of those two petitions, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the management and employees union on 12.12.2015; whereby, each of the employees were paid one time consolidated compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The employees thereafter filed ESIOP.No.11 of 2017 before the Employees State Insurance (Industrial 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021Tribunal cum Labour Court), Puducherry seeking unemployment allowance for a period of one year under Rajiv Gandhi Shramik Kalyan Yojana Scheme.3. Counter was filed by the appellants herein contending that the employees are not eligible to any allowance because of their contradictory claim made before the Tribunal and application made before the second appellant herein. In the application filed before the second appellant, the employees claimed the said benefit for the period from 23.07.2012 to 22.07.2013, however, in the original petition before the Tribunal, they claimed employment allowance for the period between 18.03.2013 and 17.03.2014. Because of this contradiction, the respondents contended that the employees are not entitled for unemployment allowance from them. 4. The appellants also took the stand that the one time consolidated compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- covers the unemployment allowance also. 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 20215. The management filed a formal counter claiming that they are only formal party and it is for the insurance company to honour the claim made by the insurance company. 6. On the side of the employees, one witness was examined and 14 documents were marked. On the side of the insurance company, Branch Manager was examined and 8 documents were marked. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the employees in part and whole that the insurance company was liable to pay the unemployment allowance for a period of four months and four days. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants / ESIC and the employees namely respondents 1 to 76 and perused the materials available on record.8. The main argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the employees cannot saddle unemployment allowance 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021during lockout period. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the employees themselves are not sure for what period they should claim unemployment allowance. In the claim petition before the Corporation, they have claimed unemployment allowance for the period between 23.07.2012 and 22.07.2013; whereas, in the claim petition they have claimed for the period between 18.03.2013 and 17.03.2014. 9. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred in taking into account the overlapping period between the two claimants and it strangely arrived at a new claim period of four months and four days. The learned counsel submitted that the period calculation is wrong and same requires interference by this Court.10. The learned counsel for the employees submitted that the order of the Labour Court is justified and it requires no interference.11. The Tribunal had framed three points for determination:(i) Whether the claim application was maintainable;7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021(ii) Whether the claim application became inadmissible due to layoff temporary closure of factory of establishment;(iii) Whether the claim petition became barred by limitation.12. The Tribunal has traversed to answer each of the points and the Tribunal based on the evidence of R.W.1 had held that the claim petition was maintainable and the claim made by the employees was only for the period when they were retrenched. 13. The learned Tribunal placed reliance on Ex.R6, to the effect that the one time consolidated compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was given to the workers as “ a full and final settlement of any and all claims, under any nomenclature including but not limited to retrenchment / closure compensation, unpaid salary / wages except EPF”.14. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the said compensation amount did not include unemployment allowance and therefore the claim petition was admissible.8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 202115. Placing reliance on the evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal had also held that the claim was fully justified and the employees were claiming unemployment allowance only for the period when the factory was closed. While discussing the important point, whether the claim petition become barred by limitation, the Tribunal held that the period of unemployment would start from 12.12.2015 namely the date on which the settlement was arrived at between the management and the employees. 16. The Tribunal has extracted Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which defines the meaning of retrenchment. 17. The learned Labour Court has found that the employees herein neither opted for VRS nor they retired on superannuation, but they were retrenched because of closure of the factory. Therefore, the period of limitation, according to the Tribunal would start only from 12.12.2015 and therefore, the claim was well within the period of nine months as stipulated in the scheme.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 202118. Having answered each of the points in favour of the employees strangely, the Labour Court has arrived at a new period of four months and four days. The Labour Court has confused itself by taking the overlapping period between the two claims made by the employees, one in the application and another in the claim petition and the Tribunal has conveniently come to a new period of 18.03.2013 and 22.07.201. Indeed had the employees filed the cross objection or appeal challenging the order of the Labour Court, this Court would have allowed the original petition. 19. This scheme was enacted/formulated to benefit those employees who had suffered retrenchment.20. There are umpteen number of judgments which state that mere quoting of wrong provision should not defeat the rightful claim of the parties.21. Even in criminal cases, though the accused might have 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021been charged for a harsher crime, if the court is of the view that the said crime would not be attracted, would punish the accused for a lesser offence. 22. In this case, the Labour Court ought to have granted unemployment allowance for one full year, taking into consideration the date mentioned in the original petition.23. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to confirm the order passed by the Labour Court. In result the appeal fails and same is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the tribunal in EIOP.No.11 of 2017 dated 26.02.2020. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.06.01.2025Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNetrual Citation Case : Yes / Norap11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1777 of 2021M.DHANDAPANI, J.rapTo1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, at Perundurai.2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.C.M.A.No.1777 of 202106.01.202512/12