High Court · 2025

W.P.No.29399 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P.No.29399 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.29242 of 2019The Management,M/s. E-Scribe Solutions India Pvt. Ltd,Rep. By its Managing Director Mathews Veliyath,Coimbatore District. .. PetitionerVs.J.Paul Jeyashankar .. Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.41/2013 and quash the same.* * *For Petitioner: Mr. K.V.ShanmuganathanFor Respondent : Served -No appearance.1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019ORDERChallenging the Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.41 of 2013, the Management is before this Court.2. The short facts are herein below set out: The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court. (i) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Company was engaged in the business of medical transcription. He was appointed on 04.08.2006 as a Quality Analyst on a consolidated salary of Rs.14,000/-. His duty was to cross-check the work carried out by the medical transcriptionists and proof readers. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had discharged his work blemishlessly and had worked for 248 days continuously in a calendar year. His last drawn salary was Rs.21,500/-. 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019(ii) The petitioner would submit that in the Company that there was one System Administrator, two Quality Analysts, three Computer Engineers, Proof Readers, one Office Assistant and 22 Medical Transcriptionists. He would further submit that he had been living at Ooty since the demise of his father and had intended to purchase a house at Coimbatore. He had therefore approached the Bank for obtaining a loan and the Bank had directed him to submit the pay certificate and the details of the Company in which he was working. However, the respondent refused to furnish the documents. (iii) Meanwhile, one Sam, the Medical Transcriptionist had wrongly noted the names of the Doctors in the month of September 2012. Therefore, alleging that that the petitioner had not verified the correctness of the proof, his services were terminated and he was not allowed to continue the work. Despite several requests, the respondent refused to give the petitioner's employment to the petitioner. 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019(iv) On 14.09.212 and 15.09.2012, the petitioner had sent his explanation to the Managing Director. The respondent informed the petitioner that they were not satisfied with the explanation but he would be permitted to join duty if he took responsibility for the mistake committed by the said Sam. The petitioner had also complied with the request of the respondent by submitting an apology letter. Despite this, he was not reinstated. Therefore, the petitioner has raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. Though the respondent filed their remarks, the conciliation proceedings had ended in failure, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 41 of 2013. 2. The respondent-Management had filed a counter affidavit inter-alia contending that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D Act as he was employed as Quality Analyst and his functions were of a Supervisory nature and that his salary also exceeded the limit prescribed under the I.D Act. They 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019would submit that their business is not regular and there is no organized labour for carrying out the business. No regular employees were appointed and whenever the Company receives any assignment, employees were hired out for the business. Therefore, they would contend that the petitioner has only worked on a temporary basis and was not appointed in 2006 as contended. There was no systematic business activity being carried out by the respondent-Company and therefore, the respondent-Company was not an industry as contended by the petitioner. 3. Before the Labour court, the petitioner had examined himself as W.W1 and Exs.W1 to W3 were marked. On the side of the respondent-Management, the Managing Director of the respondent-Company was examined as M.W1 and no documents were marked.5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 20194. The Labour Court had raised the following points for consideration:(i) Whether the petitioner is not workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act as contended by the respondent?(ii) Whether the respondent-Company is not an Industry?(iii)Whether the workman had abandoned the job on his own?(iv)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs of reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits?(v) To what other reliefs the petitioner is entitled ?6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019 5. Going through the evidence and taking into account the nature of work, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and that the respondent was an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. The Management had come forward with the defence that the petitioner had voluntarily left the services, but had not proved the same and on going through the documents, the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was terminated from service without following the procedure. Therefore, the Labour Court had passed an Award directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and to pay 50% of back wages from the date of termination i.e. 14.09.2012 with attendant benefits. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent has been served, he has not entered appearance either through counsel or in person.7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 20197. The only contention which is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act as he was a Quality Analyst and he was supervising the work of the Medical Transcriptionists. M.W.1, in his cross examination, has gone to state that the petitioner, who was appointed as Quality Analyst, was promoted as Manager. This defence has not been taken in the counter. That apart, there is no document filed on the side of the respondent to prove this contention. The witness has further admitted as follows:kDjhuUf;F xU CHpah; kPJ xG';F“ eltof;if vLf;Fk; mjpfhunkh. gjtp cah;t[ bra;anth. gzpahsh;fspd; Fiwfis nfl;L jPh;t[ tH';Ftjw;nfh kw;Wk; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; bra;anth mtUf;F mjpfhuk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; mth; ghpe;Jiu kl;Lnk bra;thh;/ mth; ghpe;Jiu bra;tij epWtdk; Kot[ bra;a[k;/ kDjhuh; gzp g[hpe;j fhyf; 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019fl;lj;jpy; nkw;fz;l bray;fs; VnjDk; bra;jhh; vd;gjw;F Mtz';fs; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/”The petitioner, in his cross examination, has stated as follows about the nature of his work.eh';fs; ifahSk; Mtz';fis btspna vLj;Jr;“ bry;tjw;F mDkjp fpilahJ/ Quality Analyst vd;Dila gzp vd;dbtd;why; word documenta[k; voice audioita[k; rhpg;ghh;j;J mjpy; cs;s errors-I jpUj;jk; bra;J tpl;L mij Number of erros vj;jid gpiHfs; cs;sJ vd;W FwpaPL bra;antz;Lk;/ mt;thW FwpaPL bra;j gpd; me;jf; nfhg;ig vdf;F mLj;j level-y; ,Uf;Fk; CE Proof reader aplk; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; mjd; gpwF eph;thfk; jhd; Kot[ bra;thh;fs;/”Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was discharging his duty as a 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019workman and the Tribunal below has rightly come to the conclusion that he is a workman of the respondent-Company, which is an Industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The Tribunal has rightly held that the dispute raised by the petitioner was maintainable. The fact that the petitioner has been terminated without notice has also been set out in detail by the Labour Court. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Labour Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.02.07.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : YessrnTo, The Labour Court, Coimbatore10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29399 of 2019P.T.ASHA, J.srnW.P.No.29399 of 2019and W.M.P.No.29242 of 201902.07.202511/11