The Management Of Tamil Nadu v. The Presiding Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.7833 of 2006 THE MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUMBAKONAM.
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE.
2.S.KUMARAVEL 3.K.GOWTHAMAN 4.K.BOOPALAN 5.R.PARIMALADOSS 6.G.MANOHARAN 7.V.SELVAKANI 8.N.PITCHAIMUTHU 9.S.DURAIRAJ 10.R.RAJENDRAN 11.A.SHANMUGAM 12.S.SELVARAJAN 13.S.SHANMUGAM 14.V.MANIKKAM 15.T.MOHAN 16.S.SIVAKUMAR 17.A.ALBERT 18.R.DILIP KUMAR 19.A.KALIAMOORTHY 1/12
20.A.BABURASAN 21.S.GOVINDARASAN 22.T.THEYAGARAJAN 23.A.SASIRASAN 24.P.DHARMARAJ 25.R.ILANGOVAN 26.V.SELVARAJ 27.G.MANIKKAM 28.K.KAILASAM 29.R.MURUGANANDAM 30.M.S.MANI 31.K.PALANIVELU 32.M.RAMESH 33.K.K.G.BALAKRISHNAN 34.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN 35.R.MANI 36.P.SUBRAMANIAN 37.P.SHANMUGANATHAN 38.T.K.PALANIVELU 39.P.MAHALINGAM 40.K.ILANGO 41.J.SAMUVEL SELLIAH 42.M.SOWRIRAJAN 43.S.VUTHAANDI 44.M.LOGANATHAN 45.K.MEGANATHAN 46.M.RAMAIYAN 47.A.RAJENDRAN 48.S.PANDARINATHAN 49.T.NATARAJAN 50.C.ANANDAN 51.S.RAJAMOHAN 52.G.RAJADURAI 53.P.GANESAN 54.S.KARTHIKESAN 55.M.MAYAKRISHNAN 56.G.THAVAMANI 57.T.GUNASEELAN 2/12
58.S.JEYACHANDRAN 59.G.DURAIRAJ 60.S.SETHURAMAN 61.V.BALACHANDRAN 62.T.DEVIRAJ 63.C.NARAYANASAMY 64.P.VISWANATHAN 65.S.VEDARATHINAM 66.V.MARUTHAVAANAN 67.K.ILANGOVAN 68.J.BALASAGAYARAJ 69.G.BASKARAN 70.R.GUNASEKARAN 71.R.NAGAPPAN 72.S.NARAYANSAMY 73.T.JEYABALAN 74.K.MEGANATHAN 75.R.P.MANI 76.A.KALIAMOORTHY 77.C.RAJADURAI 78.T.MOHAN 79.G.MANOHARAN 80.K.CHELLAKANNU 81.P.RAJU 82.K.PARANJOTHI 83.C.SUBRAMANIAN 84.K.ASAITHAMBI 85.K.KUPPUSAMY 86.N.KANNUSAMY 87.K.VEERSUNDARAM 88.S.MATHIYALAGAN 89.K.SAMIKANNU 90.S.NAGAJOTHI 91.S.SOMAIYYAN 92.R.DEVARASAN 93.V.KASINATHAN 94.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN 95.T.KANNAPAN 3/12
96.R.RAJENDRAN 97.M.SAMAYANATHAN 98.L.SEKAR 99.T.MURUGESAN 100.K.RAMANATHAN 101.T.ANBALAGAN 102.R.VASUDEVAN 103.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN 104.T.SIVAPUNNIYAM 105.A.PANNEERSELVAM 106.R.JOTHILINGAM 107.K.VENKATESAN 108.S.MUTHUTHAMILARASAN 109.K.RENGAN 110.K.SENTHAMILSELVAN 111.M.DURAISAMY 112.M.RAJALINGAM 113.R.DURAIKANNU 114.M.ANANDARAJ 115.P.SAKTHIVEL 116.V.DHARMASEELAN 117.G.MADHAVAN 118.K.MANI 119.T.MURUGANANDHAM 120.P.BALAKRISHNAN 121.A.ILAVARASAN 122.G.SUBRAMANIAN 123.V.RASAMANICKAM 124.P.RAJENDRAN 125.S.BALU 126.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN 127.K.ILAYADURAI 128.K.ASHOKAN 129.K.MANI 130.K.RADHAKRISHNAN 131.L.THIRUNAVUKARASU 132.A.MURUGESAN 133.J.ADHIKESAVAN 4/12
134.R.CHANDRASEKARAN 135.M.KALIAMOORTHY 136.T.RAJENDRAN 137.M.MATHIVANAN 138.A.K.BALAIAH 139.S.SEKAR 140.R.SAMBANDHAM 141.M.KAMARAJ 142.T.RAVICHANDRAN 143.T.MANOHARAN 144.R.DHATCHINAMOORTHY 145.T.DURAIRAJ 146.M.SELVAMANI 147.V.NAGESH 148.K.ADAIKALAM 149.L.RAJENDRAN 150.S.VIJAYAN 151.K.MANI 152.K.SUBRAMANAIAN 153.C.KUMARAN 154.S.MURUGANANDHAM 155.A.PALRAJ 156.M.MARUTHU 157.T.UTHAMANATHAN 158.P.BALAKRISHNAN 159.N.RAMANATHAN 160.A.PICHAIMUTHU 161.A.GOVINDARASAN 162.P.KAMARAJ 163.N.ULAGANATHAN 164.A.ANBALAGAN 165.S.ILANGO 166.A.ULAGANATHAN 167.S.RAJENDRAN 168.P.KAMARAJ 169.R.DURAISAMY 170.J.JOTHIMOORTHY 171.T.SIVAKUMAR 5/12
172.G.PRABHAKARAN 173.K.MATHIALAGAN 174.N.S.DURAIRAJ 175.T.KUNJUPILLAI 176.S.RAMADOSS 177.M.GUNASEKARAN 178.I.PANNEERSELVAM 179.S.MANIMARAN 180.K.MURUGESAN 181.T.THAMILARASAN 182.P.RAMALINGAM 183.S.K.SEKAR 184.V.PANDIDURAI 185.M.THANGARASU 186.V.SADHASIVAM 187.S.ANBALAGAN 188.G.SELVARAJ 189.M.UTHIRAPATHI 190.S.ALAGESAN 191.V.CHINNADURI 192.G.SRINIVASAN 193.G.VADIVEL 194.S.ILANGOVAN 195.N.RAVINDRAN 196.S.SAMPATH KUMAR 197.S.JEYARAMAN 198.T.SAKTHIVEL 199.A.SAIMANRAJ 200.M.AROKIARAJ 201.A.MANOHARAN 202.C.RAJENDRAN 203.S.RANGASAMY 204.M.SELVARAJ 205.U.GUNASEKARAN 206.V.KALIDOSS 207.V.KANNADASAN 208.G.GAJENDRAN 209.A.S.RAJENDRAN 6/12
210.R.BALASUNDARAN 211.G.RAJAMANIKKAM 212.K.SAMIDURAI 213.T.VISWANATHAN 214.G.KAMARAJ 215.K.SATHUVARAO .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in C.P.No.317 of 2000, dated 11.10.2004, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senapathi For Respondents : R1 - Labour Court : Notice serviced for RR-2, 3, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71 and 194 : Not ready in notice for RR-4 to 63, 66, 70, 72 to 193, 195 to 215
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner management challenging the order passed in C.P.No.317 of 2000, dated 11.10.2004. By the said order, the Claim Petition filed by the 214 workmen of the petitioner management was allowed by computing the balance 50% of the wages during their suspension period and each of the respondents were awarded 7/12
the sum of Rs.13,000/-, Rs.9,000/- or the case may be. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Mr.C.Senapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner management would submit that firstly, the filing of the Claim Petition straightaway without approaching the Labour Court for adjudicating their entitlement is erroneous in law and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the Computation Petition and the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.
3. It is his second contention that when the suspension order was revoked and all these workmen were reinstated into service, the management specifically passed an order that in view of the workmen not being on duty in the dates, invoking the principles of 'No Work No Pay', except for the 50% of subsistence allowance already paid, the balance payment need not be made and it will be treated as 'No Work No Pay' only. In the absence of the challenge to the said order, the Labour Court ought not to have allowed the Computation Petition.
8/12
4. There is no representation on behalf of the learned Counsel for the workmen.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case.
6. Firstly, it can be seen that the respondents indulged in a strike and they were all arrested and released on the next day. After being released, they were all placed under suspension. The dispute between the workmen and the management came to be resolved without any Disciplinary Proceedings and the same is recorded by this Court by the order, dated 09.12.1998 in W.P.No.16211 of 1998 etc., and it is essential to extract the order which reads as follows:- "It is agreed by both counsel as follows:- Subject to the writ petitioners giving a letter to the Corporation stating that on account of the happenings on the 9th and the 10th of September, 1998 if any inconvenience had been caused to the travelling public, it is regretted, the writ petitioners will be reinstated with all attendant benefits. All proceedings against them including criminal proceedings will be dropped. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
2. In view of the order passed in the main writ petition, no further orders are necessary in the writ miscellaneous petitions."
9/12
Therefore, it can be seen that the workmen will be reinstated with all attendant benefits.
7. The proceedings, including the criminal proceedings, against them were also agreed to be dropped. Once the workmen are placed under suspension and the proceedings are dropped and they are reinstated, then, it is automatic that the wages for the said period be paid. Whenever an employee is placed under suspension, normally, subsistence allowance is paid. With reference to the payment of the balance amount is concerned, the same would be dependent on the outcome of the Disciplinary Proceedings and treating the period of the suspension.
8. In the instant case, it was agreed that no Disciplinary Proceedings will be initiated against them. Therefore, automatically, they are entitled to the balance payment of 50% of salary during the respective period by virtue of the relevant Service Rules itself. This apart, their right also further got crystalised by the order in the above Writ Petition which states that the writ petitioner will be reinstated with all the attendant benefits. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the petitioner management to contend that the 10/12
workmen should approach the Labour Court for adjudication as the rights of the workmen got crystalised firstly under the Service Rules and secondly, by the order in the above Writ Petition.
9. In view thereof, finding no merits, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.12.2024 : no grs To THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE.
11/12
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs and W.P.M.P.No.7833 of 2006 09.12.2024 12/12