High Court · 2025

W.P.No.11533 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated :07.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P.No.11533 of 2025 andW.M.P.No.13023 and 13025 of 2025The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,No.12, Ramakrishnan Road,Salem – 636 007. ... Petitionervs-K. Kandasamy ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. No. 101 of 2017 and quash its order dated 30.09.2024. For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Gopalan for M/s. Agam Legal Advocates For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 ORDERThe above writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P.No.101 of 2017.2. The brief facts which has resulted in the filing of the writ petition are as follows:(i) The respondent and others, who had been working under the petitioner-Corporation since 1986, were terminated from service on 01.03.1990. The petitioner and 13 others had challenged the same in W.P.No.13266 of 1990. This Court, by order dated 20.01.1998, dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to the workmen to raise an industrial dispute. On the basis of this order, the respondent and 13 others had filed individual I.Ds before the Labour Court, Salem.(ii) By a common Award dated 16.02.2005, the Labour Court had directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and directed them to consider the case of the workmen as 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 and when a vacancy arises in the canteen of the petitioner-Corporation. The petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as per the Award of the Labour Court. (iii) Challenging the Award, the respondent and 13 others had filed W.P.No.12048 of 2006 before this Court and by order dated 28.07.2010, this Court had directed the reinstatement of the respondent and 13 others with continuity of service but without back wages. This Court had further directed the petitioner to pay wages from 13.10.2009 and in case the amounts were already paid, the same was to be adjusted against the arrears of back wages.(iv) Challenging the said order dated 28.07.2010, the petitioner had filed W.A.No.420 of 2011 and by order dated 06.08.2012, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ appeal. Pursuant to these orders, the petitioner and the workmen held discussions and the respondent and others agreed to forego 75% of the back wages for the period from 30.10.2009 to 2013. They had also given an undertaking dated 04.01.2013 stating that they are foregoing 75% of back wages. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 Thereafter on 21.01.2013, the petitioner reinstated the respondent and 13 others into service.(v) Two years after their reinstatement into service, the respondent and 13 others filed W.P.No.25560 of 2015 seeking to consider their representation dated 29.04.2013 in the light of the order dated 06.08.2012 passed in W.A.No.420 of 2011 and to fix their basic pay on par with one K.Vasugi with effect from 01.11.2009. By order dated 18.08.2015, this Court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to consider the representation of the respondent and 13 others. In compliance with this direction, the petitioner had considered and rejected the representations. Thereafter, the respondent and 13 others had filed Contempt Petition No.386 of 2016 alleging disobedience of the orders passed in W.A.No.420 of 2011. By order dated 07.11.2016, this Court had closed the contempt petition, granting liberty to the respondent and 13 others to prove their case before the Labour Court. (vi) Pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2016, the respondent and 11 others had filed C.P.No. 101 of 2017 before the Labour Court, Salem 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 claiming a sum of Rs.5,03,649/- as arrears of wages for the period between 30.10.2009 and 28.02.2013 and a sum of Rs.5,14,046/- between 01.03.2013 and 31.10.2017.(vii) A joint trial was conducted and common evidence was let in. The Labour Court had framed the following points for consideration.(i) Whether the respondent would not be entitled to 75% of back wages for the period 30.10.2009 to 21.01.2013 despite the undertaking?.(ii) Whether the respondent would be entitled to notional pay fixation under a scale of pay for the period from 01.03.1990 and consequently revision in monetary benefits from 30.10.2009?Ultimately, the Labour Court had allowed the Computation Petitions. Aggrieved by which the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 3. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.4. The only issue to be considered in this writ petition is whether the respondent and others, who have given up their claim to 75% of the back wages and have also signed an undertaking to that effect, can now renege on such undertaking.5. A perusal of the documents which have been submitted for the scrutiny of this Court would clearly show that after obtaining the orders from this Court in W.P.No.12048 of 2006 on 28.11.2010, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.420 of 2011 on 06.08.2012, the respondent and 13 others have negotiated with the petitioner-Corporation, based on which, they have agreed to forego 75% of the back wages. Each of them have also given a written undertaking to this effect. The undertaking that has been given by the workmen would read as follows:- ghh;itapy; fz;l fojj;jpy; 04/01/2013 njjpapy;“ nehpy; M$uhFkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gl;nld;/ mt;thW6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 nepy; M$uhd vdf;F ePjpkd;w cj;jut[go ntiytha;g;g[ tH';fg;gLk; vd bjhptpf;fgl;lij bjhlh;e;J epYitj; bjhif tH';FtJ Fwpj;j xg;ge;j ngr;R thh;j;ij FGKd; M$uhndd;/ ngr;R thh;j;ijapid bjhlh;e;J vdf;F tH';fg;gl ntz;oa epYitj; bjhifapy; 75% rjtPjk; kl;Lk; eph;thf eyd; fUjp tpl;Lf; bfhLf;f KGkdJld; rk;kjpf;fpnwd; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ nkYk; ,J bjhlh;ghf ve;jbthU ePjpkd;wj;jpYk; rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju gyd;fs; tH';ff; nfhhp fzf;fPl;L kD vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vdt[k; ,dptUk; fhy';fspy; fzf;fPl;L kD my;yJ ,ju kDf;fs; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;akhl;nld; vd;Wk;. mt;thW jhf;fy; bra;jpUe;jhy; mjidj; jpUk;gg; bgw;Wf; bfhs;st[k; rk;kjpf;fpnwd;. ,J vd; Ra epidt[lDk; KG kd epk;kjpa[lDk; fPH;f;fz;l rhl;rpfspd; Kd;dpiyapYk; vGjpbfhLj;j cWjp bkhHp fojk;/”7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 6. A reading of the undertaking would clearly show that the respondent and others have given up their right to claim 75% back wages. They have, on their own volition, assured that they will not initiate any proceedings in any Court of Law relating to the Salary or other benefits / demanding salary or other attendant benefits and have also undertaken not to file a computation petition “fzf;fPL kD”/ Having given such an undertaking, the workmen have filed the computation Petitions. No where in the computation statement have they mentioned about the negotiation or the undertaking. That apart, the respondent and others have neither appeared or deposed before the Labour Court alleging that this Letter of Undertaking has been obtained by coercion. However, the Labour Court, Salem had allowed the computation petitions ignoring the Letter of Undertaking and held that the Management had failed to prove that the respondent and others had voluntarily given up their right to 75% of the back wages. The burden of proof has been wrongly shifted upon the Management when it is for the workmen to prove that the Letter of Undertaking has been obtained under Coercion. In fact, the respondent and others have not even 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 referred to the undertaking in their computation petitions. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court, Salem, appears to be a case of special pleading being made in favour of the workmen, in the light of the undertaking and the fact that the respondent and others have been reinstated. As such, the respondent and others are estopped from claiming the back wages and attendant benefits. The Labour Court has not considered the issue from the correct perspective. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Labour Court, Salem in C.P.No. 101 of 2017 dated 30.09.2024 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.07.07.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/Nosrn 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11533 of 2025 P.T.ASHA, J.,srnW.P.No.11533 of 2025 andW.M.P.No.13023 and 13025 of 202507.07.202510/10