High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.02.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012andM.P.No.1 of 2011W.P.No.27639 of 2011Chidambaram Sarvodaya Sangh,48, South Car Street,Chidambaram,Rep. By its Secretary,E.Balakrishnan... PetitionerVs.1.E.Agoram2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore.... RespondentsW.P.No.9063 of 2012E.Agoram... PetitionerVs.1.Chidambaram Sarvodaya Sangh, By its Secretary, 48, South Car Street, Cuddalore District.Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 20122.The Presiding Officer, Labour Judge, Cuddalore.... RespondentsPrayer in W.P.No.27639 of 2011 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 04.10.2011 made in I.D..No.295 of 2007 and quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.9063 of 2012 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent in as much as it relates to refusal of other attendant benefits of share in profits, in I.D..No.295 of 2007.W.P.No.27639 of 2011For Petitioner:Mr.P.Dinesh KumarFor Respondents:Ms.J.Poojafor M/s.D.Baskar [R1]Labour Court [R2]W.P.No.9063 of 2012For Petitioner:Ms.J.Poojafor M/s.D.BaskarFor Respondents:Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar [R1]Labour Court [R2]*****Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012COMMON ORDERSince the issue involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.No.27639 of 2011 and the petitioner in W.P.No.9063 of 2012 are referred to as the sangam and member.3. Brief facts are as follow:(a) The member was one of the founding members of the sangam. The member joined the services of the sangam in 1978. He served as treasurer between 2003-06. Later, he was transferred to Vridhachalam branch of the Sangam by order dated 01.12.2006. While he was working at Vridhachalam branch, the member was served with a show-cause notice about the missing steel bureau and mismanagement of funds. He was served with another show-cause notice alleging insufficient sales. The member gave his explanation. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, he was served with a memo. Following the memo, an Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the member was dismissed from service vide order dated 03.03.2007.(b) Challenging his dismissal, the member raised an industrial dispute u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the I.D. Act') before the Labour Court, Cuddalore, which was taken on file in I.D.No.295 of 2007.(c) The member prayed to set aside the entire proceedings of the sangam beginning with show-cause notice and ending with his dismissal, to reinstate him with all attendant benefits, back wages, share in profits, with interest and also to direct the sangam to pay damages.(d) The sangam filed a counter alleging that the member could not be treated as a labour and therefore, he is not entitled to raise an industrial dispute. The sangam stated that principles of natural justice was followed at every stage of the proceedings and the order of dismissal was justified.(e) The learned Tribunal on an appreciation of facts and evidence, held that the dismissal of the member is erroneous and directed the sangam to reinstate the member with continuity of service and back Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012wages. However, the Tribunal denied the prayer regarding other attendant benefits and share in profits.(f) Aggrieved by the said order, the sangam has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.27639 of 2011 to quash the award dated 04.10.2011 in I.D.No.295 of 2007 and the member has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9063 of 2012 to grant remaining prayer made in I.D., namely granting of attendant benefits and share of profits.4. Learned counsel for the sangam took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the very I.D. raised by the member. According to the learned counsel, the member cannot be termed as a workman. The member was one of the founders of the sangam and only the members could be part of the working force of the sangam. He further submitted that, strictly the hierarchy was not the issue of the sangam and every member might have contributed for the growth of the sangam. The member will not fall u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act and he could never be termed as a workman. Further, he submitted that, while dismissing the member from service, the principles of natural justice was followed at every stage of proceedings and only after affording sufficient opportunities, the Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012member was dismissed from service. The Labour Court has grossly erred in treating the member as a workman and ordering reinstatement and backwages. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the award of the Labour Court may be set aside.5. Learned counsel appearing for the member contended that the award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Indeed, the Labour Court ought to have considered the second limb of the prayer made by the member in the petition, viz., granting attendant benefits and share in profits to the member. Therefore, she submitted that the member being one of the founder of the sangam is entitled to a share in the profit also.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.7. The industrial dispute could be raised only by a workman of a organization/management/factory/industry. Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act defines a workman, which is extracted hereunder :-Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012“"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person” 8. A reading of the above section would show that to be entitled to be a workman, a person should perform any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. In this case, the member himself has admitted in his evidence before the Labour Court that he was one of the founding members of the sangam. The member has also admitted that only members of the sangam could be employed in the organizational setup. In the prayer, the member has also asked for a share in the profits. It is common knowledge that when an ordinary workman raises a dispute, he would never claim a share in the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012profits. Generally, the prayer would be reinstatement into services coupled with backwages, continuity of service and the like. The fact that the member has prayed for a share in the profits would show that he would not fall within the definition of workman. The Labour Court has missed the point by a mile. This Court is in complete agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the sangam that the very I.D. raised by the member is not maintainable for the simple reason that he would not fall within the definition of the workman.9. The learned counsel for the member has taken a contention that the Labour Court having directed reinstatement and backwages, ought to have granted other attendant benefits also and a share in the profit. This is nothing to pray for a bounty. It is the grievance of the member that he is entitled to a share in the profits, for which, the Labour Court is not a forum and the real forum lies in the civil forum, by way of filing a civil suit. The Labour Court has erred in directing the very reinstatement of the member into service and granting backwages. 10. For the above reasons, this Court is no hesitation to hold that the impugned award of the Labour Court is in error and the same is Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012therefore, set aside. In the result, the writ petition in W.P.No.27639 of 2011 is allowed and the writ petition in W.P.No.9063 of 2012 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.14.02.2025Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes / NospToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Cuddalore.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 2012M.DHANDAPANI, J.spW.P.Nos.27639 of 2011 & 9063 of 201214.02.2025Page No.10 of 10