The Chairman v. The Presiding Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.12.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

... Petitioner Vs 1.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

2.

The Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Diravidar Thozilalar Kootamaipu, 18, Koya Arunagiri Street, Meersahibpet, Chennai - 600 014.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order passed in C.P.No. 219/2000 dated 12.06.2008 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anand Gopalan For R1 : Labour Court For R2 : No appearance 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the Labour Court, Salem, dated 12.06.2008 made in C.P.No. 219 of 2000.

2. The order was passed under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman, through the second respondent union had filed the above claim petition. It is the contention that, with reference to the workman involved, an order has already been passed in favour of the workman on 04.02.1997 in I.D.No.104 of 1995. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent union had also earlier filed C.P.No. 573 of 1997 and the other benefits were computed. When the orders granting the salary pursuant to the grant of promotion, etc., were passed, the workman contends that the amount is lesser by a sum of Rs.17,621/- and therefore the present computation petition was filed. This claim was allowed by the Labour Court, against which the management is before this Court.

3. It is seen that the earlier writ petition that is filed against the award has already been dismissed in W.P.No. 2130 of 1998 dated 06.07.2006. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when 2/4

the Board has computed and paid all the amounts, when the computation is disputed then the entitlement is disputed and the same cannot be gone into in a petition under 33(C)(2).

4. Considering the fact that the award has become final and Labour Court has applied its mind and determined the quantum and the amount is only Rs.17,621/-, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

5. In view thereof, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 19.12.2024 nsl To 1.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

2.

The Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Diravidar Thozilalar Kootamaipu, 18, Koya Arunagiri Street, Meersahibpet, Chennai - 600 014. 3/4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl 19.12.2024 4/4