CoramThe Honourable Mr v. P.Thanigalvelan2. The Presiding Officer II

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 16.04.2008CoramThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUWrit Petition No.1970 of 2007& M.P.No.3 of 2007The Management of Tamil NaduElectricity Board rep. By The Superintending Engineer (P&C)802, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.... PetitionerVs.1. P.Thanigalvelan2. The Presiding Officer II, Labour Court, Chennai – 600 018..... RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India prayingfor the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of thesecond respondent Labour Court relating to its award dated 6.6.2005passed in I.D.No.378 of 1997 and quash the same as illegal andwithout jurisdiction.For Petitioner : Mr.M.VaidyanathanFor Respondents : Mr.K.M.Ramesh - R1-----------O R D E RThe petitioner, which is the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, arechallenging the Award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.378 of 1997dated 6.6.2005 have filed the present writ petition. By the saidAward, the first respondent was directed to be reinstated with fullbackwages. 2. The writ petition was admitted and a conditional order ofstay was granted on 20.1.2007. By the said order, this Courtdirected deposit of 50% of the backwages within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.Subsequently, on 23.10.2007, this Court recorded that the saidcondition has been complied with. When the first respondent tried towithdraw the amount, the same was not permitted and the main writpetition was directed to be taken up. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counselappearing for the petitioner Electricity Board and Mr.K.M.Ramesh,learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.4. It is seen from the records that the first respondent wasappointed as an Helper and subsequently on 15.9.1992, he was promotedas a Junior Assistant. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted and placedunder suspension on 25.11.1993 and pursuant to an enquiry, he wasdismissed from service on 3.9.1994. His appeal and mercy petitionshaving been rejected, he raised an Industrial Dispute before theGovernment Labour Officer, which was finally taken up on file by thesecond respondent Labour Court as I.D.No.378 of 1997.5. The Labour Court after an analysis of the evidence let inbefore it, both oral and documentary, and found that the productionof false service certificate by the petitioner may be improper but inso far as the said certificate was not a basic requirement for hisemployment and the other basic documents produced by him were genuineit directed reinstatement with backwages by it Award as noted already.6. The petitioner Electricity Board contended that it is thecase of dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board andtherefore, he cannot be shown any sympathy. However, it transpiresthat several other employees of the Board, who were similarly placed,filed writ petitions challenging their termination on the ground ofproducing false service certificates. In one such case a learnedJudge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition and a writappeal was filed being W.A.No.2832 of 2001 (A.Manoharan V. TheChairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others).7. In the said writ appeal, the Division Bench presided byP.Sathasivam, J (as he then was) allowed the writ appeal. In thatwrit appeal, it was held that at the time of entry into the service,all certificates could have been verified by the Board and theyshould not have delayed the matter by which time the workmenthemselves have got further promotions. It was also stated that theexperience certificate was not a basic requirement at the time ofentry into the original post. In that view of the matter, theDivision Bench of this Court directed reinstatement of the workmen.However, it was stated that for the period in which they were out ofemployment, no wages will be paid, but service continuity was assured.8. In the light of the Division Bench of this Court, which isbased on an identical situation, there is no other option except toconfirm the Award passed by the Labour Court. Since the DivisionBench by a speaking order disallowed backwages, that portion of theAward of the Labour Court directing backwages to be paid must alsonecessarily should be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. In view of the same, the writ petition is partially allowed.The operative portion of the award of the Labour Court found inparagraph Nos.14 and 15 stands modified to the extent that the firstrespondent is directed to be reinstated without backwages, but withcontinuity of service. Since the Labour Court has grantedreinstatement by its Award dated 6.6.2005 and the award is now beenupheld, the restoration of the first respondent into service shall bedone within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. 10. A right of the workman for getting reinstated accrued bythe Award dated 6.6.2005, he is also eligible for wages from the dateof the Award. The wages for the period from the date of dismissaltill the date of award alone will be deprived. Mr.Vaidyanathan,learned standing counsel for the Board contended that pursuant to arequest made by the first respondent that he will forego backwages,the Board was willing to consider his case without backwages.Therefore, if this Court orders reinstatement, it should be donewithout any backwages till he is reinstated and took exception to thegrant of wages from the date of the Award and pleaded denial of fullwages.11. It must be stated that this Court is not recording anycompromise between parties. Even at the beginning, parties wanted anorder of the Court. Further, in the present case that portion of theAward is being confirmed and therefore natural consequences mustfollow. If persons who came to this Court directly and got relieffrom the date of the Writ Appeal, there is no reason why a person whowent to Labour Court should be denied relief from the date of theAward by which the first respondent was directed to be reinstated.For the sole reason going to an alternative forum he cannot bepunished. Further in the present case, an Award if confirmed byvirtue of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act will beenforceable after 30 days after its publication in the manner knownto law. This Court cannot deprive a statutory liability cast on theenforceability of the Award. In the present case, the Award is dated6.6.2005. But the writ petition was filed after 1 1/2 years delayand no explanation is found in the affidavit filed in support of theWrit Petition. As per Section 13 of the Industrial Disputes Act, theworkman was eligible to get the last drawn wages which was not donein this case. Under the above circumstances, this Court is notinclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the TamilNadu Electricity Board, that this Court on an unjust foundation todeny wages to the workman from the date of the Award till he isactually reinstated.12. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is partlyallowed. The portion relating to grant of backwages from the date ofdismissal till the date of Award i.e., 6.6.2005 is set aside. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first respondent will be reinstated and paid the wages from the dateof the Award i.e. 6.6.2005 till the date of reinstatement within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisCourt. The entire period of non-employment will be considered ascontinuous service for all practical purposes. No costs.Consequently, M.P.No.3 of 2007 is closed.Sd/- Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarslToThe Presiding Officer II, Labour Court, Chennai – 600 018.+ 1 CC to Mr.Vaidyanathan, Advocate, S.R.No.21980+ 1 CC to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.21478Writ Petition No.1970 of 2007& M.P.No.3 of 2007AKR (CO)SRA (29/04/2008)