High Court · 2024

W.P.No.34248 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.04.2024CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.34248 of 2022Roopavathi (deceased)2.G.Kannan3.Jayanthi4.Sasikala(Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record vide order of this Courtdated 01.04.2024) .. PetitionersVs.General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(VPM) Ltd., Kancheepuram RegionPonnerikarai, KancheepuramKancheepuram District... RespondentPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to complete the signing of the check-slip without imposing any conditions and settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner i.e., Gratuity, Provident Fund (Employees Share), Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022Contribution towards Medical and Engineering Colleges and sanction Family Pension within a time frame.For the Petitioners:Mr.N.Sundaramurthy For the Respondent:Mr.R.Venkatesa PerumalORDERThe petitioner's father, viz., Gopal was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation. While so, the punishment of removal from service was imposed against him. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.190 of 2005. Pending the same, he died and the petitioners herein along with their mother – Roopavathi were impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5 in the said Industrial Dispute. 2. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice and found that the deceased employee has made out a case for interference. However, the Labour Court did not order that the deceased employee should be deemed to be in service till the date of his death. However, passed the following order:Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022“17/ nkw;go kDjhuh; jug;g[ rhl;rpak;. rhd;whtzk; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;g[ rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtz';fspd; mog;gilapy;. ,we;Jnghd kDjhuh; nfhghy;. m$hf;fpuijahYk;. ftdf;FiwthYk;. mjpntfj;jhYk; ngUe;ij Xl;o tpgj;J Vw;gLj;jpdhh; vd;gij rk;gtj;ij nehpy; fz;Qqw;w rhl;rpfs; vtiua[k; tprhhpf;fhknyna cs;Jiwtprhuiz kDjhuh; nfhghy; kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;L epUgpf;fg;gl;ljhf mwpf;if mspj;J mjd; mog;gilapy; mth; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;oUg;gJ ,aw;if epajpf;F g[wk;ghdJ vd;gjhf ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ/ kDjhuh; nfhghy; capUld; ,Ue;jpUe;jhy;. mtUf;F gzpj;bjhlh;r;rp gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffs; tH';fg;gl;oUf;Fk;/ kDjhuh; nfhghy; bjhHpy; jhth epYitapy; ,Ue;j fhyj;jpy; ,we;Jtpl;ljhy; gzp tH';fntz;Lk; vd;w ghpfhuj;ij mspf;f ,ayhJ/ vdnt. cah;ePjpkd;w. cr;r ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[fspd; mog;gilapy;. gzp kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffs; tH';Ftjw;F gjpyhf ec&;l <L tH';Ftnj ,aw;if epajpf;F cfe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;W jPh;khdpj;J kDjhuh;fSf;F vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; U:/2.00.000 / ? ec&;l <lhf tH';fntz;Lbkd;W jPh;tk; gpw;ggpj;J gpur;rpidfSf;F tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ/”3. As a matter of fact, the petitioners never felt aggrieved by the said order, it is only the respondent – Corporation which had filed a W.P.No.34927 of 2014 and the same came to be disposed of by an order Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022dated 06.01.2020. It is essential to extract paragraph No.6 of the said order, which reads as follows:-“6. It is true that the deceased employee was issued with a charge that he has committed the accident due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of 3 persons. The said charge was denied by the deceased employee. His case was that the vehicle was not properly maintained by the Corporation and therefore, he cannot be blamed for the said accident. Needless to say that the right persons to speak about the accident are the eye witnesses to the same. Only those persons will be in a position to speak as to whether the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Admittedly, no such eye witness was examined in this case. The Management, while conducting the independent domestic enquiry, is not justified in simply relying on the FIR alone, without examining the eye witnesses. Therefore, the Labour Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the deceased from the service is not just and proper. It is also seen that the Labour Court has only awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and the said award is not questioned by the respondents 1 to 4. Therefore, it is evident that they have accepted the relief granted by the Labour Court. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, I find that the findings rendered by the Labour Court are not perverse requiring any interference by this Court.”4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was paid only in respect of back wages and reinstatement and the other terminal benefits should be paid to him. So long as the said Roopavathi, the deceased employee's wife and the original petitioner in the present Writ Petition was alive, family pension should have Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022also been paid to her. Therefore, the prayer in the present Writ Petition should be considered to that limited extent.5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation would submit that only in lieu of reinstatement and payment of all other terminal benefits, the said compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was ordered. Earlier this Court itself had given a specific finding that when the respondents 1 to 4 therein are not feeling aggrieved by that and they have not challenged that, the Management could not have challenge the same and confirmed the said award. Even during the lifetime of the said Roopavathi, she would not be entitled for family pension and now that she has also died, pending the present Writ Petition, there is no merit in the prayer made in the present Writ Petition. No other terminal benefits are liable to be paid to the petitioners, who are the children of the deceased – Gopal as already a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid in lieu of all other terminal benefits.6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022perused the material records of the case.7. As could be seen from the operative portion of the order of the Labour Court, it has specifically given a finding that it refrained from granting reinstatement or back wages. The sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been ordered in lieu of all other payments, which are liable to be paid.8. As a matter of fact, the award has been read in that particular manner and this Court has also observed that the said award has not been questioned by the petitioners herein and it is the further finding of this Court that the petitioners had accepted the relief granted by the Labour Court. 9. In view thereof, at this juncture, in the absence of any challenge to the earlier Labour Court award or the observations made in the earlier round, now, belatedly the award of the Labour Court cannot be read otherwise by this Court and I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any other relief. It is stated that the petitioners had already received a sum of Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022Rs.2 lakhs. 10. Therefore, finding no merits in the Writ Petition, the same stands dismissed. No costs. 01.04.2024Index : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes Speaking order: Yes JerToThe General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(VPM) Ltd., Kancheepuram RegionPonnerikarai, KancheepuramKancheepuram District.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. Jer W.P.No .34248 of 2022 01.04.2024Page 8 of 8

W.P.No.34248 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.04.2024CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.34248 of 2022Roopavathi (deceased)2.G.Kannan3.Jayanthi4.Sasikala(Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record vide order of this Courtdated 01.04.2024) .. PetitionersVs.General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(VPM) Ltd., Kancheepuram RegionPonnerikarai, KancheepuramKancheepuram District... RespondentPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to complete the signing of the check-slip without imposing any conditions and settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner i.e., Gratuity, Provident Fund (Employees Share), Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022Contribution towards Medical and Engineering Colleges and sanction Family Pension within a time frame.For the Petitioners:Mr.N.Sundaramurthy For the Respondent:Mr.R.Venkatesa PerumalORDERThe petitioner's father, viz., Gopal was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation. While so, the punishment of removal from service was imposed against him. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.190 of 2005. Pending the same, he died and the petitioners herein along with their mother – Roopavathi were impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5 in the said Industrial Dispute. 2. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice and found that the deceased employee has made out a case for interference. However, the Labour Court did not order that the deceased employee should be deemed to be in service till the date of his death. However, passed the following order:Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022“17/ nkw;go kDjhuh; jug;g[ rhl;rpak;. rhd;whtzk; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;g[ rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtz';fspd; mog;gilapy;. ,we;Jnghd kDjhuh; nfhghy;. m$hf;fpuijahYk;. ftdf;FiwthYk;. mjpntfj;jhYk; ngUe;ij Xl;o tpgj;J Vw;gLj;jpdhh; vd;gij rk;gtj;ij nehpy; fz;Qqw;w rhl;rpfs; vtiua[k; tprhhpf;fhknyna cs;Jiwtprhuiz kDjhuh; nfhghy; kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;L epUgpf;fg;gl;ljhf mwpf;if mspj;J mjd; mog;gilapy; mth; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;oUg;gJ ,aw;if epajpf;F g[wk;ghdJ vd;gjhf ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ/ kDjhuh; nfhghy; capUld; ,Ue;jpUe;jhy;. mtUf;F gzpj;bjhlh;r;rp gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffs; tH';fg;gl;oUf;Fk;/ kDjhuh; nfhghy; bjhHpy; jhth epYitapy; ,Ue;j fhyj;jpy; ,we;Jtpl;ljhy; gzp tH';fntz;Lk; vd;w ghpfhuj;ij mspf;f ,ayhJ/ vdnt. cah;ePjpkd;w. cr;r ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[fspd; mog;gilapy;. gzp kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffs; tH';Ftjw;F gjpyhf ec&;l <L tH';Ftnj ,aw;if epajpf;F cfe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;W jPh;khdpj;J kDjhuh;fSf;F vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; U:/2.00.000 / ? ec&;l <lhf tH';fntz;Lbkd;W jPh;tk; gpw;ggpj;J gpur;rpidfSf;F tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ/”3. As a matter of fact, the petitioners never felt aggrieved by the said order, it is only the respondent – Corporation which had filed a W.P.No.34927 of 2014 and the same came to be disposed of by an order Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022dated 06.01.2020. It is essential to extract paragraph No.6 of the said order, which reads as follows:-“6. It is true that the deceased employee was issued with a charge that he has committed the accident due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of 3 persons. The said charge was denied by the deceased employee. His case was that the vehicle was not properly maintained by the Corporation and therefore, he cannot be blamed for the said accident. Needless to say that the right persons to speak about the accident are the eye witnesses to the same. Only those persons will be in a position to speak as to whether the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Admittedly, no such eye witness was examined in this case. The Management, while conducting the independent domestic enquiry, is not justified in simply relying on the FIR alone, without examining the eye witnesses. Therefore, the Labour Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the deceased from the service is not just and proper. It is also seen that the Labour Court has only awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and the said award is not questioned by the respondents 1 to 4. Therefore, it is evident that they have accepted the relief granted by the Labour Court. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, I find that the findings rendered by the Labour Court are not perverse requiring any interference by this Court.”4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was paid only in respect of back wages and reinstatement and the other terminal benefits should be paid to him. So long as the said Roopavathi, the deceased employee's wife and the original petitioner in the present Writ Petition was alive, family pension should have Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022also been paid to her. Therefore, the prayer in the present Writ Petition should be considered to that limited extent.5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation would submit that only in lieu of reinstatement and payment of all other terminal benefits, the said compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was ordered. Earlier this Court itself had given a specific finding that when the respondents 1 to 4 therein are not feeling aggrieved by that and they have not challenged that, the Management could not have challenge the same and confirmed the said award. Even during the lifetime of the said Roopavathi, she would not be entitled for family pension and now that she has also died, pending the present Writ Petition, there is no merit in the prayer made in the present Writ Petition. No other terminal benefits are liable to be paid to the petitioners, who are the children of the deceased – Gopal as already a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid in lieu of all other terminal benefits.6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022perused the material records of the case.7. As could be seen from the operative portion of the order of the Labour Court, it has specifically given a finding that it refrained from granting reinstatement or back wages. The sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been ordered in lieu of all other payments, which are liable to be paid.8. As a matter of fact, the award has been read in that particular manner and this Court has also observed that the said award has not been questioned by the petitioners herein and it is the further finding of this Court that the petitioners had accepted the relief granted by the Labour Court. 9. In view thereof, at this juncture, in the absence of any challenge to the earlier Labour Court award or the observations made in the earlier round, now, belatedly the award of the Labour Court cannot be read otherwise by this Court and I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any other relief. It is stated that the petitioners had already received a sum of Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022Rs.2 lakhs. 10. Therefore, finding no merits in the Writ Petition, the same stands dismissed. No costs. 01.04.2024Index : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes Speaking order: Yes JerToThe General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(VPM) Ltd., Kancheepuram RegionPonnerikarai, KancheepuramKancheepuram District.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34248 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. Jer W.P.No .34248 of 2022 01.04.2024Page 8 of 8