High Court · 2025

W.P.No.28239 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) RESERVED ON : 17.04.2025PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025PRESENT: THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P.No. 28239 of 2021 N.Jayaraman, No.42, Perumal Koil Street, Chithampakkam Village, Mannavedu Post, Thiruvallur District – 602 021. …Petitioner Vs.Thiru. D.Y.Loganathan, Proprietor, M/s. Balaji Transport Limited, No.7, Railway Station Road, Thiruvallur,Thiruvallur District. …RespondentPrayer in W.P.To pass an order, direction or writ more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records of III Additional Labour Court order dated 30.10.2014 passed in C.P.No.832 of 2011 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pay the 50% backwages with other attendant benefits as per the Award dated 31.03.20211 passed in I.D.No.230 of 2005 and pass such other order and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021Appearance of Parties:For Petitioner : M/s.S.T.Varadarajulu, P.Ganeshmurthi, T.Karkkivelan and A.Kanagasabathy, Advocates. For Respondent : M/s.R.K.Gandhi, M.K.Aseena & K.Anees Fathima, Advocates. ( No appearance).J U D G M E N T Heard.2.The petitioner, who was employed as a bus conductor in a transport bus owned by the respondent, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 832 of 2011, by which the Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. The matter was taken up for hearing on 04.01.2022, and notice was ordered to the respondent. The respondent was duly served on 12.01.2022 and has entered appearance through counsel.3.In the impugned order passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021Disputes Act, the Labour Court recorded the following findings:—“On perusal of the document dated 3.7.2000 it revealed the petitioner was not able to continues service due to health and resigned the post after receiving a sum of Rs.13,000 as exgratia payment he has further undertaken not to claim any amount from the management. He admitted that he was in service for 3 years alone. In this view the management proved the petitioner was not able to continue the service in 2000 itself and received sum of Rs.13,000 and left the service on his own. This point is answered accordingly. Point No.1. The Petitioner claimed difference in wage from 1982 to 15.3.2002. No material is produced to prove that he is entitled for this difference. The award also did not direct the management to pay the difference of salary. He admitted that he worked for 3 years only. 2.The petitioner has not produced any material to prove that uniform allowance, shoe allowance, medical allowances, were given to workers. Award also did not direct the management to give such allowances. Which allowances are not statutorily liable.3. The petitioner has claimed over time wage for 345 months.The award did not give directions to pay overtime wage. Because the petitioner got the award for the reinstatement. But for the time of overtime wage. 4.The petitioner had not produced any document to show that he was in service for 20 years in respondent management. So he is not entitled for bonus claimed in the petition because R3 reduced he was in service for3 years only.5. The petitioner claimed pension from 2010 to 2011 as it he was in service for 20 years. The petitioner admitted that he reached the age of retirement in 2008. Since, he has not proved that he was in service for 20 years. He is not entitled 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021for any pension amount. 6. Since Petitioner has suppressed the agreement dated 3.7.2000 and mislead the court to pass the award. He is not entitled for any relief. 7. In this view the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the result this claim petition is dismissed without cost.” 4.The present writ petition challenges the above order of the Labour Court. It is submitted that the Labour Court has completely misdirected itself in adjudicating the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s claim petition was founded solely on the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 230 of 2005, dated 31.03.2011. A copy of the said award was enclosed with the claim petition. In addition to other reliefs, the petitioner had specifically sought back wages, notice pay, and retrenchment compensation on the ground that the award had not been duly implemented.5.The award passed in I.D. No. 230 of 2005 dated 31.03.2011 granted the following reliefs in favour of the petitioner:—“....mjd; fhuzkhf epue;ju bjhHpyhspahf vjpu;kDjhuuplk; gzpahw;wpa kDjhuiu epu;thfk; rl;ltpnuhjkhf gzpePf;fk; bra;Js;sJ vd;W jPu;khdpf;fg;gl;L. kDjhuiu. gzpj;bjhlu;r;rp. 50# gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffSld; kPz;Lk; gzpapy; 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021mku;j;j vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfj;jpw;F cj;jutpl;L mt;thnw gpur;ridfSf;F tpil mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/15/,Wjpahf kDjhuiu vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; gzpj;bjhlu;r;rp. 50# gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffSld; kPz;Lk; gzpapy; mku;j;j ntz;Lbkd;W cj;jtplg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j; bjhif ,y;iy/ ” 6.The claim petition in C.P. No. 832 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner to enforce the benefits granted under the award in I.D. No. 230 of 2005, along with certain additional claims. In the counter statement dated 13.09.2012, the respondent contended that the said award was under challenge before this Court in W.P. No. 21426 of 2011 and that the writ petition was still pending. A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was produced before the Labour Court and marked as Ex.R7.7.However, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order passed in W.P. No. 21426 of 2011, which revealed that the writ petition had been dismissed by this Court as early as 21.06.2018. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:—“When the matter was called on 18.06.2018, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court has posted the matter under the caption “For dismissal” on 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 202121.06.2018. But, even today when the matter was called, there is no representation for the petitioner. 2. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.”8.The Supreme Court has categorically held that in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot go behind or re-examine the validity of an existing award. This principle was laid down in M/s. Voltas Ltd. v. J.M. Demello, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 479, wherein the Court observed as follows:—“….. As stated in propositions (5) and (8), proceedings under sec. 33C(2) are analogous to execution proceedings and a Labour Court called upon to compute benefits claimed by a workmen is in the position of an executing court and as such competent to interpret an award where there is a dispute as to the rights thereunder or as to its correct interpretation. Obviously, if the award is unambiguous, the Labour Court is bound to enforce it, and under the guise of interpreting it, it cannot make a new award by adding to or substracting anything therefrom.”9.Although the respondent initially contended that the award was under challenge in a writ petition, it is now evident that the said writ petition was dismissed seven years ago and no further appeal has been preferred. As such, the award has attained finality and is binding on the parties. In this context, the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021petitioner’s contention—that he was not reinstated in service despite the award, and that his continued non-employment amounts to a termination within the meaning of Section 2(oo) read with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act—assumes significance. As a result, he claims entitlement not only to 50% back wages as awarded, but also to notice pay and retrenchment compensation on account of the employer’s failure to implement the award.10.The Labour Court failed to consider the core issue and erroneously went behind the binding award, ultimately concluding that the workman was not entitled to back wages. Such a course is impermissible under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.10.2014 in C.P. No. 832 of 2011 is liable to be set aside. With respect to the petitioner’s claim, the following components are legally valid and enforceable pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 230 of 2005 dated 31.03.2011:—1. Notice Pay under sec.25 /F(1)(a) (5000 x 1 month) Rs. 50002. Compensation under 25/F(b) 2500 x 20 years Rs. 500003. Rate of 50% back wages from 15.03.2002 to 30.06.2010Rs.240000 (as per the award) 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021 Total Rs.29500011.As regards the remaining claims pertaining to wage differentials, overtime allowance, uniform and shoe allowance, medical allowance, and pension, the petitioner has not established any statutory or contractual right under which such payments are claimed. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that the respondent-establishment is covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, and therefore, those claims were rightly rejected by the Labour Court. In the present circumstances, instead of remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, this Court deems it appropriate to confine relief only to the three components that are statutory in nature and arise directly from the award passed by the very same Labour Court, which has since attained finality following the dismissal of the respondent’s writ petition. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to direct payment of those amounts alone.12.In light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court in C.P. No. 832 of 2011 dated 30.10.2014 is hereby modified, and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- from the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021 29.05.2025ayNCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order / Non-speaking OrderTo The Presiding Officer III Additional Labour CourtChennai. DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, JayPre-Delivery Judgment made in W.P.No. 28239 of 2021 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28239 of 2021 29.05.202510/10