← Library
Madras High CourtWP/2633/2015disposed of

Shri A. Mohanraj (Deceased) v. The Presiding Officer

2024-08-05Honourable Ms Justice R.N.Manjula6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :05.08.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA 1.Shri.A.Mohanraj (deceased) 2.Kala 3.M.Madhan 4.M.Lalith (P2 to P4 are substituted as legal representatives of deceased P1 as per order dated 02.04.2024 in W.M.P.No.34008 of 2023 in W.P.No.2633 of 2015) ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai 600 006.

2.The Director, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Veerakeralam, Coimbatore - 7.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records passed in I.D.No.64 of 2007 dated 12.01.2012 on the file of the Central Page No.1 of 6

Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chennai and quash the portion of the award denying backwages and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay full backwages.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Veeramarthini For Respondents : R1-Tribunal Mr.K.Ravindranath for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records passed in I.D.No.64 of 2007 dated 12.01.2012 on the file of the Central Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chennai and quash the portion of the award denying backwages and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay full backwages.

2. Heard Mr.A.Veeramarthini, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.Ravindranath, learned counsel for R2 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is a permanent worker of the second respondent and hence, he is entitled to get the backwages also.

Page No.2 of 6

4. Despite the Labour Court has observed that the first petitioner has been recruited in due process and called upon for attending interview and thereafter appointed and also that the first petitioner had put up long years of service, have not chosen to give backwages to the first petitioner. Even though the second respondent was gracious to reinstate the first petitioner, he was reluctant to accept permanent nature of the first petitioner's appointment. As per the second respondent, the appointment is only temporary in nature. However, it is seen that the first petitioner had served several years and had continuity of service as similar as that of a regular employee. When the nature of the work performed by the first petitioner appears to be permanent in nature, the Labour Court could have considered the said fact also for the purpose of awarding backwages.

5. Even though the Labour Court has taken cognizance of the fact that the first petitioner has continuously served for many years, for the reason best known, the Labour Court has not allowed the backwages to Page No.3 of 6

the first petitioner. Even though the permanent nature of the first petitioner is not taken up for consideration, the fact remains that the first petitioner had rendered his services by getting employed after selection.

6. Except the fact that the conferment of permanent status was not done, the job role and continuity of service would only show that the first petitioner was working as similar as that of permanent employees for whom the Labour Court ought to have awarded backwages also. However, taking into consideration of the long period for which the first petitioner was out of service and also the fact that the first petitioner's permanent status has not been conferred, I feel the first petitioner should be allowed to be given with an award for atleast 25% of the backwages by applying the rules of equity.

7. In view of the above observations, this Writ Petition is partly allowed and the award of the first respondent dated 12.01.2012 is modified to the effect that the first petitioner is entitled to get 25% of the backwages. All other aspects of the award dated 12.01.2012 stands Page No.4 of 6

confirmed. The second respondent is directed to pay 25% of the backwages to the first petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Index: Yes /No 05.08.2024 Speaking / Non-speaking gsk To 1.The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai 600 006.

2.The Director, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Veerakeralam, Coimbatore - 7.

Page No.5 of 6

R.N.MANJULA , J.

gsk 05.08.2024 Page No.6 of 6