V. Nagarathnam v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ss. 2(A), 33(c)(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:4-07-2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMAWRIT PETITION No.35030 of 2002V. Nagarathnam... Petitionervs1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Madurai2. V. Marimuthu ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Claim Petition No.29/2001 dated 27.6.2002 on the file of the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Madurai and quash the same. For petitioner: Mr.M.V. VenkataseshanFor R.2: Mr.S. Jayaraman ORDERThe petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Awardpassed by the Labour Court in Claim Petition No.29/2001, filed by the second respondent under Sec.33(c)(2) of Industrial Dispute Act. 2. The second respondent had joined as Worker in the Lodge run by the petitioner on 2.3.1989. The second respondent's service was terminated on 21.11.1993, which was challenged by raising an Industrial Dispute under Sec.2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.The reference was decided in favour of the second respondent, and the learned Labour Court while setting aside the order of termination, directed the petitioner to pay back wages at the rate of Rs.600/-per month from 25.11.1993 till reinstatement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
On failure to honour the Award of the learned Labour Court, the second respondent filed a claim petition, claiming a sum ofRs.57,000/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand only) as determined amount of back wages. The learned Labour Court allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand only).
The petitioner, as an employer, aggrieved by the impugned award, challenged the award on the ground, that the petitioner was not running the lodge, when the second respondent was working, therefore, the liability for payment of back wages could not be fixed on the petitioner. This plea of the petitioner deserves to be rejected, as the original award under Sec.2(A) was passed against the petitioner, and the award passed by the learned Labour Court against the petitioner has attained finality.
The second ground of challenge is that the claim was time barred, therefore the learned Labour Court committed an error in passing the award. This plea again deserves to be rejected, as it is now well established that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a claim petition under Sec.33(c)(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, as claim under Section 33(c)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings, the claim cannot be said to be barred by limitation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
No other point was urged or raised in this Court.
Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits, isordered to be dismissed.
This Court, vide order dated 11.9.2002, had directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand only) with permission to the second respondent to withdraw 50% of the awarded amount.
It shall now be open to the second respondent, to withdraw the balance 50% of the amount from the bank with interest.
No costs. Sd/-Deputy Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Madurai1 CC To Mr.S.Alagarsamy, Advocate SR NO.39090 W.P.No.35030 of 2002sv[co]gp/23.8
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.