High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 13.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019K.Muthu Savudiyan... PetitionerVs.The Management,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,Dindigul Zone, Dindigul.... RespondentPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relates to the order of the Labour Court Trichy in I.D.No.1/2011 dated 24.03.2017 and quash the same as illegal efface and against law, consequently, direct the respondent to pay the pensions and other allowances which are the petitioner liable to get. For Petitioner:Mr.O.SivakumarFor Respondent:Mr.J.Senthilkumaraiah____________Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019O R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed aggrieved by the award passed in I.D.No.1 of 2011 dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned Labour Court, Trichy, dismissing the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner on the ground that the same is barred by limitation in the light of the provisions contained in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A of “the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1947”).2. The petitioner herein raised the said Industrial Dispute aggrieved by an order dated 22.03.2007, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service on certain charges. The learned Labour Court, in all, framed four points for consideration, which read as under:“1.kDjhuh; kPJ vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jhy; tidag;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;L ep&gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh?2. fhytiuaiw Njh\j;jhy; ,j;njhopy; jfuhW kD ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh?3. kDjhuUf;F kDtpy; NfhhpAs;sthW vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; gzpj;njhlh;r;rpAlDk;> gpd;rk;gsj;JlDk;> ,ju ____________Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019rYiffSlDk; kPz;Lk; gzp toq;f cj;jutplf; NfhhpAs;s ghpfhuhk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?4. kDjhuUf;F fpilf;ff;$ba ,ju ghpfhuk; vd;d?”3. The learned Labour Court has decided the point No.1 in favour of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The learned Labour Court also has taken into consideration the contradictory finding recorded by the learned Enquiry Officer in his report, wherein, the learned Enquiry Officer has initially recorded a finding that the charges are not proved but in the conclusion portion, the learned Enquiry Officer recorded a finding as charges are proved against the petitioner. However, the learned Labour Court having held the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved came to the conclusion that the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner is barred by limitation in the light of the provisions contained in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A of the Act 1947 and thereby has not recorded any finding on issue Nos.3 and 4. Thus, the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Labour Court. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ ____________Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019Petition.4. The respondent has not filed any Writ Petition against the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court on point No.1. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court on point No.1 has attained finality. In the light of the above, the only question that needs to be decided by this Court is whether the Industrial Dispute that was raised by the petitioner is really barred by limitation or not under point No.2 5. As already noted above, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 22.03.2007. The petitioner herein filed the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.1 of 2011 on 18.01.2011, which is admittedly beyond the period of three years. Then, the next issue that is required to be decided is when exactly the limitation started for filing the Industrial Dispute in the facts and circumstances of the case. As on the date of dismissal of the petitioner from service on 22.03.2007, there is no provision prescribing any limitation in the Act 1947. The provisions providing for limitation for raising an Industrial Dispute was introduced for the first time with effect from 15.09.2010 by way of Amendment ____________Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019Act 24 of 2010. Thus there was no limitation that was prescribed for raising an Industrial Dispute till 15.09.2010. Therefore, in all fairness, the period of limitation if any should be counted only from the date of coming into force of sub-Section (3) of section 2A of Act 1947 with effect from 15.09.2010. If that date is taken into consideration, the industrial dispute that was filed by the petitioner on 18.01.2011 is well within a period of three years. The issue as to the starting point of the limitation consequent upon the amendment made through Act 24 of 2010 has fallen for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23860 of 2018 and the learned single Judge, after elaborately discussing the law available as on that date, has held that the starting point of limitation in all cases where the cause of action arose prior to 15.09.2010, would be date on which the said amended provision came into force on 15.09.2010. The relevant paragraph from the said order reads as under:“34. Accordingly, this Court holds that the limitation provided under sub-section (3) would start only from 15.9.2010, from which date, the workman has three years time to raise the dispute directly to the Labour Court/Tribunal, even in respect of a proceeding pending ____________Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019before the conciliation officer, insofar as any dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination from service and any dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination order passed by the employer after 15.9.2010, the date of the said order would be the starting point for computing the period of limitation u/s 2-A (3) of the Act. Issue No.1 is answered in the above terms.”6. In the light of the above, the starting point of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case is only 15.09.2010 but not the date of actual date of dismissal from service ie., 22.03.2007. As already noted above, if the period of limitation is counted with effect from 15.09.2010, the Industrial Dispute filed by the petitioner is well within the period of limitation. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court on issue No.2 with regard to limitation is totally perverse and unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned award to the extent of declaring that the industrial dispute filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed to that extent.7. Then the next question that would arise for consideration is as to for ____________Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019what relief the petitioner is entitled to?8. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation as early as in the year 2011. In the light of the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court on points 1 and 2, the natural consequence would be granting the relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service as the dismissal order is not substantiated by the respondent Corporation. 9. However, this Court having perused the translated copy of the impugned award has noticed that the charge levelled against the petitioner is that he has altered the entry made with regard to the ticket numbers whereby collected certain amounts ie., the tune of Rs.40/-. The alteration of the ticket numbers is admitted by the petitioner, but contended that the same is mistake but not an intentional act. In the light of the admission of the petitioner about the alteration of the ticket numbers may be by mistake or otherwise the same is admitted by the petitioner. Though the respondent Corporation failed to establish the charge, this Court is not inclined to ignore the entire charge levelled ____________Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019against the petitioner, while considering the relief to be granted to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be denied 50% of the backwages while granting all other benefits including payment of all terminal benefits.10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent Corporation to treat the petitioner as continued in service till the date of attaining the age of superannuation and pay all terminal benefits including 50% of the backwages from 22.03.2007 till the date of superannuation. All the terminal benefits that were otherwise due and payable to the petitioner as on the date of superannuation shall carry the simple interest at the rate of 6% from the date of superannuation till the date of payment to the petitioner.11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 13.02.2025Neutral Citation: Yes / NoIndex :Yes / No____________Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019vsmToThe Management,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,Dindigul Zone, Dindigul.____________Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2019MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.vsmW.P.(MD)No.7331 of 201913.02.2025____________Page 10 of 10