M.Ekambaram v. Buckingham & Carnatic Mills
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.18182 of 2013
1. M.Ekambaram
2. M.Kubendiran
3. M.Paranthaman
4. D.Viswanathan
5. B.Uvaraj
6. P.Sundararajan
7. A.Raja Mohmed Davuthu
8. A.Dharmalingam
9. V.Kumar 10.M.Kanagaraj 11.W.Panneer Selvam 12.R.Arumainathan 13.S.Rajan 14.G.Kumaresan 15.C.Rajasekar 16.K.Venkatesan 17.D.Narayanan 18.E.Sampathkumar 19.M.Ravichandran 20.D.Mohanraj 21.S.Gunasekaran 22.D.Ethirajulu 23.C.Arunagiri 24.E.Ravi 25.K.Nainakumar 26.N.Udayakumar 27.E.Balu 28.A.Prabhakaran 29.S.Bhaskaran 30.S.Balaraman 31.A.Shanmugam 32.V.Lakshmipathy 33.M.Sankar 34.T.Shanmugam 35.M.Perumal 36.S.Nagarajan 37.G.S.Sivakumar 38.V.S.Hariharan 39.K.Kanniappan 40.S.Sathiyamurthy
41.K.Hari Mohan 42.K.Anbalagan 43.S.Arulanandham 44.K.Mohan 45.D.Loganathan 46.E.Suresh Babu 47.K.Iruthayaraj 48.M.Mohan 49.D.Johnson 50.M.Lingesan 51.R.V.Balaji Rao 52.S.Francis
...Petitioners
..Vs..
1.Buckingham & Carnatic Mills Ltd., (M/s.Binny Ltd.,) Rep by its Managing Director, No.106, Armenian Street, Chennai - 01.
2.The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
...Respondents
Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in respect of the Common Award dated 29.10.2012 with respect to the C.P's of the petitioner's as follows:
S.No.
Petitioner Name C.P.Number 1.
Ekambaram 120/04 2.
Kubendiram 171/08 3.
M.Paranthaman 181/08 4.
D.Viswanthan 185/08 5.
B.Uvaraj 187/08 6.
P.Sundararajan 188/08 7.
A.Raja Mohamed Davuthu 191/08 8.
A.Dharmalingam 192/08 9.
V.Kumar 193/08 10.
M.Kanakaraj 194/08 11.
W.Paneerselvam 195/08 12.
R.Arumainathan 197/08 13.S.Rajan 198/08 14.
G.Kumaresan 199/08 15.
C.Rajasekar 200/08 16.
K.Venkatesan 201/08 17.
D.Narayanan 207/08 18.
E.Sampath Kumar 208/08 19.
M.Ravichandran 209/08 20.
D.Mohan Raj 215/08 21.
S.Gunasekaran 216/08
22.
D.Ethirajulu 217/08 23.
C.Arunagiri 220/08 24.
E.Ravi 221/08 25.
K.Naina Kumar 222/08 26.
N.Udayakumar 223/08 27.
E.Balu 226/08 28.
A.Prabhakaran 227/08 29.
S.Baskaran 229/08 30.
S.Balaraman 233/08 31.
A.Shanmugam 235/08 32.
V.Lakshmipathy 236/08 33.
M.Shankar 237/08 34.
T.Shanmugam 239/08 35.
M.Perumal 241/08 36.
S.Nagarajan 243/08 37.
G.S.Sivakumar 247/08 38.
V.S.Hariharan 250/08 39.
K.Kanniappan 252/08 40.
S.Sathyamurthy 253/08 41.
K.Harimohan 254/08 42.
K.Anbalagan 255/08 43.
S.Arulanandam 256/08 44.
K.Mohan 257/08 45.
B.Loganathan 258/08 46.
E.Suresh Babu 259/08 47.
Irudayaraj 261/08 48.
M.Mohan 266/08 49.
D.Johnson 268/08 50.
M.Lingesan 271/08 51.
R.V.Balaji Rao 273/08 52.
S.Francis 442/08 to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.77,800/- to each of the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as prayed in the Communication Petitions.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sundar Rajan For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
for R.1) R2-Labour Court
ORDER
The common order passed in the Claim Petitions is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2.The petitioners state that they were appointed as Trainees in the first respondent/Company and thereafter, they were made as permanent employees. The first respondent/Company was closed and inspite of efforts, it was not reopened. On 28.03.1998, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workers under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the petitioners admittedly opted for voluntary retirement, only paid Rs.50,000/- including gratuity, by the first respondent. 3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that as per terms and conditions of the settlement, the writ petitioners are to get Rs.1,00,000/- on par with other employees who are receiving this amount. The petitioners filed Claim Petition before the second respondent on 02.06.
2008 for the purpose of computation of balance dues to be paid to these workmen and also for the ex-gratia payment, along with the interest. The Claim Petitions filed under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were dismissed on 29.10.2012, against which the present writ petitioner is filed. 4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that all these writ petitioners were initially appointed as Trainees and subsequently absorbed as permanent employees. As per the terms and conditions of the settlement, all the employees who have opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme have failed to receive Rs.1,25,000/- and the said amount has not been paid by the Management.
The Management treated the writ petitioners as Trainees and therefore they have not granted the settlement as per the terms and conditions stipulated. 5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/management disputed the contentions by stating that the Claim Petition under Section 33 C (2) itself was filed after a lapse of 10 years from the date of acceptance of the full and final settlement. All these writ petitioners have accepted the settlement, received the payments in full and waited for about 10 years and thereafter filed the Claim Petition by stating that they were permanent employees working in the first respondent/Company and they are entitled to get compensation on par with the permanent employees of the first respondent/Company.
The Labour Court itself made a finding that the Claim Petition was filed after a period of 10 years. It is further stated that no reasons are furnished for the said huge delay of 10 years. In the absence of any valid reason, the delay is a vital factor and the petition itself is to be dismissed on the ground of latches.
6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent solicited the attention of this Court regarding the findings of the Labour Court that on 27.05.1998 itself the
petitioners have received the full and final settlement of the claims and they have issued receipt acknowledging the receipt of payment and none of the petitioners have received the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme compensation under protest or written any communication to the respondent/Company stating that they are entitled for higher amount for Voluntarily Retirement Scheme compensation. The Labour Court on verification of the documents found that the petitioners themselves filed in the para 7 of the affidavit as well as in the proof affidavit have accepted that they were Trainees, when they were working in the respondent/Company.
7.This being the finding of the Labour Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Claim Petition itself is not maintainable as the petition was filed after a lapse of 10 years and no reasons have been given for 10 years of delay. This apart the petitioners themselves admitted in the Claim Petition that they were termed as Trainees when they were working in the respondent/Company. When the writ petitioners are in service, at that point of time they were termed as Trainees, they were not entitled to the benefit of the permanent workmen of the Company. 8.Finally, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that a similar claim of other Trainee employees were dealt with by this Court in the case of R.Udayakumar & Others Vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court & Others in W.P.Nos.8040 to 8042 of 2009 and batch dated 12.07.2011 and the relevant paragraphs of the said Order are extracted hereunder;
"7.The Labour Court held that the workmen were bound by the settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act which is marked as Ex.P.3 and they have not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that they are not trainees and they are regular workers. It is also found that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was offered under Ex.R.3. The workers have received the sum without anyprotest and no further letters were written by them to the management. This fact was admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination as noted by the Labour Court in Paragraph 25 of the impugned order.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the above order showing them as trainees in the year 1985 only stipulates training for the period of 52 weeks and thereafter they should be deemed to be regular workers. Therefore, the second respondent-mill cannot deny them as the status of the regular workers. He also placed reliance on a certificate issued wherein it was initiated that they are workmen in the second respondent-textile mill and therefore they are not described as trainees, but from
the certificate issued shows that it was issued to enable the workmen to obtain new Ration Card and no further meaning can be taken out for the said certificate. Even though the order of appointment shows that they have to undergo training for a period of 52 weeks, in the absence of any standing orders, by which, they are deemed to be in permanent status, this Court cannot presume that they are regular workers and eligible to get the amount paid to the regular workers in terms of Paragraph 3 of the said settlement. Even otherwise, as to the status of the workman, whether they are trainees or deemed to be in permanent workers is not an issue to the disputed under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D.Act, apart from that the Labour Court has also referred to the admission made by PW.1 that after receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/-, there was no protest by them and yet another factor which works against the workmen.
9.In these circumstances, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs."
9.In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no perversity or infirmity in respect of the common award passed by the Labour Court dated 29.10.2012. Accordingly, the award is confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
mrm Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan , Advocate SR.No. 88538 +1cc to Mr.T.Sundar Rajan , Advocate SR.No. 88490 W.P.No.18182 of 2013 vba A.SK(02/12/2019)