P.N. Perumal v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 09..4..2008Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. Nos. 10793 and 13613 of 1999W.P. No. 10793 of 1999:-P.N. Perumal.. Petitioner Vs.1.The Presiding OfficerLabour CourtSalem2.The Management of Paragon PolymarProducts (Pvt.) Ltd.KanagakriKakapalayam PostSalem District .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records pertaining to I.D. No. 73 of 1996 and quash the awarddated 19.12.1997 passed therein and further direct the secondrespondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuityof service, backwages and all attendant benefits. W.P.No. 13613 of 1999:-The Management of Paragon PolymarProducts (Pvt.) Ltd.KanagakriKakapalayam PostSalem District.. Petitioner Vs.1.The Presiding OfficerLabour CourtSalem2.P.N. Perumal .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the recordspertaining to Award dated 19.12.1997 made in I.D. No. 73 of 1996passed by the first respondent Labour Court and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For workman : Mr. Nazirulla for Mr. K.V. ShanmuganathanFor Management : Mr. Ananthakrishnan for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.COMMON ORDERW.P. No. 10793 of 1999 is filed by the workman challenging theAward dated 19.12.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No. 73 of 1996 in so far as it denied the relief of reinstatementand confined the relief only for payment of compensation. W.P.No. 13613 of 1999 is filed by the Management against the very sameAward in so far as it granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieuof relief to the workman. 2.When the second writ petition was admitted, the said writpetition was directed to be posted along with the first writpetition. But, however, by way of interim order dated 11.8.1999,the amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be deposited.Subsequently, on 30.12.2002, the interim order was made absolute.But the same was directed to be deposited in a Nationalised Bankinitially for a period of three years under re-investment scheme.3.In view of the interconnectivity between the two writpetitions, they are heard together and a common order is passed.4.Heard the arguments of Mr. Nazirulla appearing for Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the workman andMr. Ananthakriahnan, representing M/s T.S.Gopalan & Co., learnedcounsel appearing for the Management and have perused the records. 5.Before the Labour Court, it was contended by the workmanthat he was retrenched from service and since the conditionprecedent under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act [forshort, 'I.D. Act'] was not followed, he is liable to get the normalrelief of reinstatement with backwages. Before the LabourCourt, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of theManagement, one Manoharan was examined as M.W.1. While theworkman had filed thirteen documents marked as Exs. W.1 to W.13, onthe side of the Management, 19 documents were filed and they weremarked as Exs. M.1 to M.19. 6.The stand of the Management was that there was an illegalstrike and consequent upon the same, the Management made a policecomplaint regarding the illegal activities of some of the workmenand in that complaint, the name of present petitioner / workman'sname was not mentioned. But, however, when he was asked to comeback to work, he did not return for the same. But, on thecontrary, he came to the work place on 03.11.1995 and took thewages for the month of October 1995 after giving full and finalsettlement. Therefore, he was not interested in his employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It was further submitted that he was only a fitter trainee andemployed on casual basis and there was no proof that he had workedfor 240 days in each of the year in which he claimed to haveworked. But, it is the stand of the workman that though he hasbeen working in the establishment from 30.4.1994, but on26.10.1995, without any written order, his services were stopped onan oral direction. At the time of dispensation of his service, hewas drawing a sum of Rs. 1543/- pm.7.Before the Labour Court, the Attendance Registers havebeen filed and the Labour Court in paragraph 6 of the impugnedAward, after referring to Exs. W.7 to W.13 and Exs. M.7 and M.12,held that that the workman had worked for 246-1/2 days in a periodof 12 calendar months and, therefore, he is eligible for protectionunder Section 25 F of I.D. Act. But, however, on the question ofrelief, the Labour Court held that even though there was aninfraction of the condition precedent under Section 25 F of theI.D. Act and the termination was illegal, but this is not a casewhere the workman to be reinstated since there was a strainedrelationship between the Management and the workman and once hegoes back to work, the Management may indulge in some other actionand some how, dispense with the services of the workman and,therefore, it would be advisable to grant a lump sum compensationin lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court held that theworkman was eligible for 32 months' wages which works out to a sumof Rs. 49,400/- and by rounding it off, directed Rs.50,000/- to bepaid to the workman. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the Managementsubmitted that even if there was infraction of Section 25 F of theI.D. Act, all that the Labour Court should have done was onlypayment of retrenchment compensation together with notice pay andin as much as he had signed in Ex. M.18 on 03.11.1995 afterrecording full and final settlement, it must be presumed that hewas not interested in employment.9.A perusal of Ex. M. 18 shows that the workman hadreceived wages for 18 days in the month of October 1995. Incolumn No. 14 he has signed on the Revenue Stamp and in column Nos.12 and 13, it is written "full and final settlement on03.11.1995". But, however, those columns are meant for enteringdetails regarding advance loan deduction, other deductions andtotal deductions to be made from the salary of a worker. It isnot clear as to why the Management had written therein as it isfull and final settlement. In any event, drawing salary for themonth for which he had worked and signing the same will not makeany acquiescence on the part of the workman unless it is shown thatsome extra amount had been paid with reference to the other claimsof the workman and the workman had consciously signed by giving ago-by to his other rights. The Register of Wages is not theplace where such an endorsement can be made. In any event, theLabour Court refused to agree the evidenciary value of Ex. M.18 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ so far as the said endorsement is concerned.10.In the present case, the finding of the Labour Court wasthat the services of the workman were dispensed with incontravention of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act and in so far as thatfinding of fact is on record, the question of any acquiescence orestoppel of waiver will not arise whereas such a waiver or estoppelor acquiescence is totally prohibited in terms of Section 25 J(2)of the I.D. Act. 11.However, Mr. Nazirulla, learned counsel appearing for theworkman, strenuously contended that having found the mandatorycondition precedent of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act has beenviolated, the normal rule is relief of reinstatement and that hasnot been done in this case and, therefore, the workman had alsofiled writ petition in the earlier point of time. 12.It is not a thumb rule in every case where there isviolation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, there must be anautomatic reinstatement with backwages. The Supreme Court has heldin more than one case that the Labour Court has got power to mouldthe relief even in case where there is a violation of Section 25 Fof the I.D. Act. In the present case, the workman had put in onlytwo years of service and the Labour Court recorded a finding thatthere is a strained relationship between the Management and theworkman and if he is once more put back in service, there will befurther victimisation. The Labour Court was also liberal ingranting compensation in as much as it had awarded compensation ofRs. 50,000/-, which, even as per the finding of the Labour Court,represents 32 months' wages. 13.Under the above circumstances, neither the finding of theLabour Court nor the relief ordered by the impugned Award call forany interference for exercising power under Article 226 of theConstitution. In view of the same, both the writ petitions failand they will stand dismissed. Since the writ petitions aredismissed, it is open to the workman P.N. Perumal to withdraw theamount lying in deposit to the credit of I.D. No. 73 of 1996.However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Presiding OfficerLabour CourtSalem+ 1 CC To M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. Advocate SR NO.19817W.P. Nos. 10793 and 13613 of 1999ssv[co]gp/13.5.