Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
There being no merit, the writ appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 s. 2(A)(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The submission as was made on behalf of the appellant thatthere was no evidence to suggest that the service of the 2ndrespondent was terminated, cannot be accepted in view of theevidence on record as noticed by the learned single Judge. Beforethe Labour Court, apart…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 06.11.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANW.A. NO. 2325 OF 2001ANDW.A.M.P. NO. 18088 OF 20011. The Management M.S.Mani Nadar Proprietor Meenakshi Hardware Stores Dindigul.2. The Management M.Veeramani Meenakshi Hardware Stores Dindigul... Appellants/ Petitioners- Vs -1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Madurai.2. N.Murugan.. Respondents/ RespondentsWrit Appeal filed against the order dated 13.09.2001 passed bylearned single Judge in W.P.No.20330 of 1994 as stated therein.W.P.No.20330 of 1994:- to issue a writ of certiorari calling for therecords relating to the award dated 27.7.1994 passed I.D.No.264 of1990 on the file of the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai(the Ist respondent herein)For Appellant : Mr. S.SubbaiahFor Respondents: Mr. D.Nelliappan(For R2)JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The appellant Management having unsuccessfully challenged theaward dated 27th July, 1994 passed by Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.264/90, preferred the writ appeal against the order passed bylearned single Judge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
According to the appellant, the 2nd respondent herein wasworking under his wife, Pushpammal, being a proprietary concern andafter her death, the same was closed. During the life time of hiswife Pushpammal, the 2nd respondent suddenly left the service on 20thJan., 1990 on his own accord. Subsequently, he filed a false claimthat he was dismissed from service without any charge or enquiry andraised an industrial dispute u/s 2 (A) (2) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, registered as I.D. No.264/90, which was allowedby learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, by impugned award.
Further case of the appellant is that the management of Meenakshi Hardware Store was closed and the 2nd respondent havingleft the service voluntarily on 20th Jan., 1990, the dispute asraised was not maintainable. Learned Presiding Officer should haverejected the claim as the 2nd respondent was gainfully employed as acommission agent and having an income over Rs.1,000/= per month.
We have heard the parties and also noticed the award and theevidence on record, including the statement of the witnesses.
Operative part
The submission as was made on behalf of the appellant thatthere was no evidence to suggest that the service of the 2ndrespondent was terminated, cannot be accepted in view of theevidence on record as noticed by the learned single Judge. Beforethe Labour Court, apart from the oral evidence of the workman, whoexamined himself as W.W.1, the other witness, W.W.2 (PonnaiyaPillai) was examined. According to W.W.2, in regard to terminationof services of the workman, a panchayat was held in which themanagement agreed to and conceded to the request of the workman. Itfurther appears that even before the Labour Officer – ConciliationOfficer, it was agreed upon by the management that the workman willbe allowed to join the service of the management. Taking intoconsideration the aforesaid evidence, a clear finding of fact havingbeen arrived at by the Labour Court, as affirmed by learned singleJudge, we find no ground to reverse such finding of fact in thiswrit appeal. There being no merit, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.GLN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Presiding OfficerLabour CourtMadurai.1 cc to Mr.S. Subbiah, Advocate, SR. 66537 W.A. NO. 2325 OF 2001ASM (CO)kk 12/11
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: There being no merit, the writ appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(A)(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.