D.Pugazhendhi,(Token No.500) v. The Management Of Binny Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.30818 to 30829 of 2015 1.D.PUGAZHENDHI 2.P.MANOHARAN 3.V.SACHITHANANDAM 4.D.GNANASEKAR 5.V.BALAJI 6.M.ARUNAGIRI 7.D.JANAKIRAMAN 8.S.JOESPH 9.R.MANOHARAN 10.S.BALAKRISHNAN 11.K.CHITTIBABU 12.G.RAJENDRAN 13.M.PADMAKUMAR 14.ELANGOVAN 15.E.SUNDARAMURTHY 16.N.KRISHNAMURTHY 17.K.PANDIAN 18.A.GOPALAKRISHNAN 19.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN 20.M.THUKKARAM 21.R.PALANI 22.M.RAMANA 23.M.RAVI 24.C.MANICKAVASAN 25.SANTHAMMAL 26.RAVANAMMA 27.V.DEVARAJAN 28.K.RAMAN 29.N.P.MUNUSWAMY 30.T.R.SRINIVASAN 31.S.VIJAYAKUMAR 32.M.VENUGOPAL 33.C.KUPPUSAMY 34.D.EKAMBARAM 35.J.JOHN 36.M.MUNIRATHINAM 37.SURIYA GANDHI AMMAL 38.V.SEKARAN 39.R.SUNDARARAJAN 40.A.NARAYANASWAMY

41.T.MANIVANNAN 42.R.SUNDARAM 43.P.RAJENDRAN 44.K.CHINNASAMI 45.K.VIJAYAKUMAR 46.L.K.LOGANATHAN 47.M.SHANMUGAM 48.N.KRISHNA MOORTHI 49.C.ALEXANDER SAMUEL 50.KARPAGAM 51.N.SUBBARAJ 52.MANJULA 53.K.KOTTEESWARI 54.VISHALATCHI 55.P.GAJALAKSHMI 56.M.RADHAKRISHNAN 57.J.KANNAN 58.T.VENUGOPAL 59.K.G.PANNEERSELVAM 60.M.PONRAJ 61.E.SELVARAJ 62.NAGAMMAL 63.D.VASANTHAKUMAR 64.J.MARIAM BEE 65.J.AMEER UNNISSA 66.J.SYED JABUDIN 67.J.FAIZ UNNISSA 68.J.NISHATHUNNISA 64 TO 68 ARE ALL LEGAL HEIRS OF SYED JALALLUDHIN (DIED) 69.T.BALAKRISHNAN 70.M.PARANTHAMAN 71.K.GOPAL 72.V.MARIAPPAN 73.K.PITCHAI 74.M.INNASI 75.D.SHANTHI 76.J.KUPPUSWAMY 77.V.MARIAPPAN 78.G.GABRIEL 79.U.VAIJAYANTHI 80.U.SARANYA 81.U.JEEVANANDHAM 79 TO 81 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF K.UDHAYAKUMAR (DIED) 82.C.BAKTHAN 83.K.VENUGOPAL

84.A.RENUGA 85.K.SEKAR 86.R.SEKAR 87.GHOUSE BASHEER 88.N.KANNIAPPAN 89.G.KRISHNAMURTHY 90.A.ABDUL LATHEEF 91.V.KRISHNAN 92.T.BOOPATHI 93.R.VITTABAI 94.P.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN 95.D.USHA 96.D.UMA 97.S.NITHYA 95 TO 97 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF D.DASARATHAN (DIED) 98.B.KAMALAKKANNAN 99.D.PALANI 100.K.SUBRAMANI 101.S.KADIRVELU 102.K.ARUMUGAM 103.D.MURUGANANDAM ...PETITIONER IN WP.NO. 30818 OF 2019 1 G.BALARAMAN(TOKEN NO.332) ... PETITIONER in WP No.30819 of 2015 2 M.KESAVAN 3 A.JAYACHANDRAN 4 R.VEERARAGHAVAN 5 M.DANIEL 6 P.NAGARAJAN 7 K.ALALASUNDARAM 8 L.NANDAN 9 M.NAGAIAH 10 G.JAYAMMA 11 M.NIRMALA 12 A.MARIA JOSEPH 13 K.NAGAIAH 14 A.FRANCIS 15 M.ANANDA KRISHNAN 16 J.DEVENDRAN 17 A.VENKATACHALAM 18 M.NAGESWARA RAO 19 K.GOVINDASAMY 20 C.DEVENDRAN 21 J.REETA 22 B.MANOHARAN

23 E.SUBBARAYADU 24 D.RAJENDRAN 25 M.VELAPPAN 26 V.VEMBULI 27 A.PONNUSAMY 28 R.VENKATSAMY 29 N.MEGAVARNAM 30 M.PONNURANGAM 31 A.VAIDYA LINGAM 32 R.GOTHANDAN 33 B.MOHANAN 34 K.MALLEESWARI 35 K.MUNI MANJU 36 K.GEETHA 34 to 36 Legal Heirs of S.Krishnamoorthy (Died) 37 B.MALAKONDIAH 38 M.JOTHILINGAM 39 K.GOVINDARAJ 40 L.SELVARAJ 41 S.KUPPUSAMY 42 V.SANKARAN 43 E.JANAKIRAMAN 44 S.VINAYAGAM 45 P.MUNUSAMY 46 R.SARASWATHI 47 R.PALANI 48 K.ARASAN 49 G.DHANALAKSHMI 50 G.KARUNAMMAL 51 P.PANNEERSELVAM 52 M.PERUMAL 53 IQBAL AHEMED JEDDY 54 K.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM 55 N.EZHUMALAI 56 K.SETHURAMAN 57 K.MUTHU 58 V.SHANMUGAM 59 N.NEELAKANDAN 60 G.YOGAN 61 N.DAMODHARAN 62 P.MANI 63 G.PUSHPARAJ

64 P.SUNDARAMOORTHY 65 C.N.SANDANA KRISHNAN 66 N.R.RAJARAM 67 D.ANBAZHAGAN 68 M.GANESAN 69 S.SAVITHRI 70 A.MANI ( 71 V.A.ANNAMALAI 72 C.ELLAPPAN 73 N.SUBRAMANI 74 N.SEKAR 75 K.S.KULASEKARAN 76 A.MEGANATHAN 77 C.THILAGAVATHI 78 K.R.SATHYABAMA 79 N.BABU 80 P.KUMAR 81 K.KUPPUSWAMY 82 N.GOPALAKRISHNAN 83 H.SIMPSON 84 J.ANTHONY 85 K.SANTHAKUMARI 86 G.P.MURUGAIYAN 87 S.RAMACHANDRAN 1 A. PARANTHAMAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.30820 of 2015 2 K. ARUMUGAM 3 V. GUNASEKARAN 4 S. SARAVANAN 5 A. ANBURAJ 6 M. SEKARAN 7 G. THIRUVENGADAM 8 S.M. KUPPAN 9 N. DURAISAMY 10 P. HARIKRISHNAN 11 R. MUNUSAMY 12 U. NARAYANAKUTTY 13 D. KASILINGAM 14 K.V. SAMIDOSS 15 V. SIVASHANMUGAM 16 B. PUGAZHENDHI 17 M. GOVINDARAJULU 18 C. BALASUBRAMANIAN 19 G. MANI 20 B. KUPPUSAMY RAJU 21 C. RAJENDRAN 22 R. NATARAJAN 23 M. LAKSHMAIAH 24 A. RAMAMURTHY

25 T.S. DURAI 26 S. DORAIRAJ 27 D. PUSHPALINGAM 28 M. PORURAN 29 B. CHITTIBABU 30 G. PURUSHOTHAMAN 31 G. VENUGOPAL 32 K. SAMPATH 33 R. GOPAL 34 K. RAJENDRAN 35 M. ETHIRAJ 36 N. MAHALINGAM 37 K. KUMARAN 38 M. DHANASEKARAN 39 M. LAKSHMANAN 40 C. JAYARAMAN 41 M. ARUMUGAM 42 P. MUTHUSAMY 43 M. LOGANATHAN 44 K. MALAKONDIAH 45 T. VENKATACHALAM 46 G. UGANANDHAM 47 RUBAN DUNCAN 48 M. AMIRTHARAJ 49 V. RAMAKRISHNAN 50 G. KRISHNAIAH 51 K.A. PERUMAL 52 N. VASUDEVAN 53 R. MANI 54 S. PERUMAL 55 D. LUCAS GAMBEERAM 56 S. NIRMALA 57 J. THANGARAJ 58 R. KRISHNANMURTHY 59 R. DHANAPAL 60 D. PRAKASAM 61 N. RAMACHANDRAN 62 K.R. DAYALAN 63 S. DHAKSHINAMOORTHY 64 N. SELVAKUMAR 65 M.P. JOTHYVEL 66 P. VASANTHA 67 S. RAJENDRAN 68 K. RADHAKRISHNAN 69 K.P. MANIVANNAN 70 N. KARIMULLA DOSS 71 VEERABAI 72 S. JOHN PAUL (TOKEN NO.156)

73 C. GUNASEKARAN 74 K. PARTHASARATHY 75 P. CHAKKRAVARTHI 76 M. DAMODARAN 77 K. PANDIAN 78 D. SATHIYAMOORTHI 79 R. RAMAMOORTHI 80 R. LAKSHMIPATHY 81 C. RAMASWAMY 82 R. DILLI 83 V.M. VENGAIAH 84 M. JAYAKUMAR 85 A. NARASIMMA RAO 86 D. SIVASANKAR 87 V. VADIVELU 1 V.PARANTHAMAN ... PETITIONERS in WP No.30821 of 2015 2 D.THYAGARAJAN 3 N.SIVAPRAKASAM 4 S.GANESA BABU 5 V.BALASUNDARAM 6 J.SAMSON 7 C.MADURAI MUTHU 8 M.JONES RETNAM .

9 C.MOORTHY 10 A.M.RADHAKRISHNAN 11 V.RAMANI 12 S.MOHANA 13 V.PRABHU 14 V.DEVI 11 to 14 legal heirs of M.Vadivel (Died) 15 C.PANDIAN 16 K.DORAIKANNU 17 B.N.SRI RAMULU 18 D.SUDARSANAM 19 P.ISAKKIYAPPAN 20 V.GOVINDA RAJU 21 G.VENKATESAN 22 T.K.MANICKAM 23 MD.MUSTAFA 24 P.JANAGI RAMAN 25 M.SIVANANDHAM 26 M.KARUNANITHI 27 K.S.BHAKTHAVATCHALAM 28 D.SRINIVASAN 29 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN 30 D.JANARDHANAM 31 K.NARAYANAN 32 C.MADHAVAN

33 V.VENUGOPAL 34 N.INBASEKARAN 35 I.ANTHONY @ SAMUVEL 36 T.VARADHAN 37 B.SAMPATH 38 K.DHANASEKARAN 39 S.NALINI 40 S.BHAVANI 41 S.LAKSHMI 42 E.RAVINDRAN 43 T.VISWANATHAN 44 SUBRAMANI 45 R.ARTHANAREESWARAN 46 P.CHENGAKAZHANI 47 AROKIASAMY 48 N.RAVINDRANATH 49 V.MURTHY 50 G.SAMBANDAM 51 K.MUNUSAMY 52 A.CHENGALIAH 53 S.MANI 54 R.VASANTHA KUMARI 55 D.PREM KUMAR 56 P.GANESHAN 57 `S.GANGA 58 J.SARAVANAN 59 K.ELAVAZHAGAN 60 D.RAMANAN 61 A.NARAYANAN 62 KASTHURI 63 F.JOSEPH 64 J.SRIDHAR 65 K.DHAKSHYANI 66 G.N.KANAKARAJ 67 S.INDHUMATHI 68 K.MOORTHY 69 K.LOGANATHAN 70 A.JEEVANANDHAM 71 J.VICTOR CHARLES 72 P.SOORIYA MOORTHI 73 M.GOVINDARAJ 74 P.SUSEELA 75 S.DEVASITHAM 76 V.PONNUVEL 77 D.RAMANI NATHAN 78 M.SAROJA 79 G.VENKATAPATHY 80 M.BABY 81 B.PANNEERSELVAM 82 K.SEKAR

83 S.JOTHIAMMAL 84 J.GEORGE FRANCIS 85 C.CHELLADORAI 86 M.MANOHARAN 87 N.MURUGAN 88 N.MARIAPPAN 89 A.JOSEPH 90 B.SUBRAMANI 91 P.K.SUBRAMANI 92 B.MOORTHY 93 P.ARUMUGAM 94 P.RENGANATHAN 1 S.VIJAYAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.30822 of 2015 2 M.KUMAR 3 M.PREM SINGH 4 N.RAMA MOORTHY 5 M.MALAKONDAYAH 6 M.VENKATESAN 7 A.SUNDAR 8 M.S.KUPPUSAMY 9 A. ANTHONY 10 S.SELVARAJ 11 P.NIZAR AHAMAD 12 K.BALASUNDARAM 13 C.SHANMUGAM 14 D.JAYASEELAN 15 P.ETTIAPPAN 16 D.DHARMALINGAM 17 K.LAKSHMANAN 18 M.SHANMUGARAJ 19 W.PETER 20 R.RANGAN 21 B.NATARAJAN 22 E.NARASAPPAN 23 S.GOPINATH 24 T.SELVARAJ 25 M.S.MANI 26 A.DURAISAMY 27 V.JANAKIRAMAN 28 S.GOVINDAMMAL 29 S.LAKSHMI 30 S.DEVIKA 31 S.JOTHI 32 V.SAROJA 28 TO 32 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF V.SIVAGNANAM (DIED) 33 G.VELMURUGAN 34 C.MURTHY

35 B.RUKNANGADHAN 36 S.DHAKSHINAMOORTHY 37 S.SATHYANARAYANA RAO 38 M.DHANASINGH 39 C.PARTHASARATHY 40 C.PARAMASIVAM 41 S.SUBRAMANI 42 V.GUNASEKARAN 43 M.MALAKONDIAH 44 B.DHANALAKSHMI 45 P.MARUTHAMBAL 46 M.JAMBULINGAM 47 R.GANESAN 48 M.SATHIYAMOORTHY 49 K.ARUMUGAM 50 M.PANKAJAM 51 V.VENUGOPAL ADHITYA 52 M.MURALIKRISHNAN 53 M.KAMALAKKANNAN 50 TO 53 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF K.MANNAR (DIED) 54 C.CHANDRAN 55 K.SELVARAJ 56 N.MANAVALAN 57 G.VENGAPPAN 58 J.GAJENDRAN 59 S.MOHAN 60 E.GOVINDASAMY 61 R.DANAPAL 62 `P.MANI 63 K.SRINIVASAN 64 A.N.RAJAVEL 65 R.RAMANUJAM 66 R.GOVINDA RAJU 67 C.HARIKRISHNAN 68 P.RAMAKRISHNAN 69 D.VENKATARAMAN 70 V.BHAVANI 71 D.PADMANABHAN 72 S.MANOHARAN 73 K.KESAVAN 74 P.APPA RAO 75 G.ALAMELU 76 GOTTI PATTI VENKATAMMA 77 DASARI RADHIKA 78 NAKKA USHA 76 TO 78 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF CHINN KOTTAIAH (DIED) 79 R.BENJAMIN RUDRAPATHI 80 S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN

81 A.GANESAN 82 V.RADHAKRISHNAN 83 K.JOTHI 84 P.MUNIRATHINAM 85 B.THULASI 86 L.RAJALAKSHMI 85 AND 86 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF S.BHOOPATHY (DIED) 87 S.LAKSHMANAN 88 P.S.MANI 89 K.BALASUBRAMANIAM 90 V.ARUMUGAM 91 D.VENKATESWARALU 92 V.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 93 T.PALANIVELU 94 K.SEKAR 95 V.KUMARAVEL 1 K.SHANMUGAM ... PETITIONERS IN WP.30823/2015 2 D.JAYAVEERAN 3 A.MURTHY 4 K.NITHIYAKALYANAN 5 V.SELVARAJAN 6 V.LAZAR 7 T.VARADAIAH 8 T.AYYACHAMY 9 S.SANJEEVIRAYAN 10 M.KUMARAVEL 11 R.AGATHEESWARAN 12 C.ARUMUGAM 13 L.KASTHURI 14 A.ARULANDU 15 A.SAVARIMUTHU 16 M.VIJAYARANGAM 17 K.GAJENDRAN 18 S.SANKARAN 19 S. ABDUL SALAM 20 S.SUNDARAM 21 M.RAYAPPAN 22 E.VELAYUTHAM 23 KATHERIN 24 JEENA 23 AND 24 LEGAL HEIRS OF M.D.GEORGE (DIED) 25 K.SAMBANDAM 26 K.DHARMALINGAM 27 A.ELUMALAI 28 A.M.NANDAGOPAL 29 D.LOGANATHAN

30 R.KOTHANDA RAMAN 31 N.SRINIVASAN 32 P.S. PRABHAKARAN 33 P.PUSHPA 34 R.PANCHATCHARAM 35 K.CHANDRAIAH 36 T.MEENATCHI 37 S.RAJESWARI 38 B.KUPPUSWAMY 39 S.RAMANIBAI 40 D.MALAKONDIAH 41 K.VASUDEVAN 42 J.GANTHAMANI 43 G.SOMASUNDARAM 44 S.KUMARI 45 V.KANNAN 46 G.BAKTHAVATCHALAM 47 V.RANGANATHAN 48 K.SUNDARESAN 49 J.DEIVASIGAMANI 50 M.SUNDAR 51 KADHAR BASHA 52 NIRMALA 53 D.PARAMASIVAM 54 S.VENKATESALU 55 S.VENKATESAN 56 G.SANKAR 57 G.LAKSHMANAN 58 C.ANANDA RAO 59 V.VIJAYAKUMAR 60 P.G.MUNUSWAMY 61 S.RAJENDRAN 62 S.JAGADEESAN 63 K.THANGARAJ 64 M.VIJAYAN 65 N.MOHAN 66 N.SADASIVAM 67 B.THAYUMANASAMY 68 S.N.JAYARAMAN 69 D.SURIYADASS 70 EBINEZER DEVASITHAN 71 V.RAMASWAMI 72 V.RAJASEKARAN 73 K.JOSEPH 74 S.SWAMINATHAN 75 A.JAYAPAUL 76 C.P.VENKATA REDDY 77 A.JOSEPH CELLADURAI 78 M.R.SUBRAMANIAM 79 P.S.PERUMAL

80 A.NAGAPPAN 81 M.SIVALINGAM 82 P.SETHU 83 S.SATHIYAMURTHY 84 D.THYAGARAJAN 85 V.ELANGOVAN 86 B.BABU 87 S.PANDURANGAN 88 RAVANAMMA 89 V.RAMALINGAM 90 D.PANNEERSELVAM 1 D.KAMALAKANNAN .

.. PETITIONERS in WP No.30824 of 2015 2 T.VASANTHA DEVI 3 S.CHINNASWAMY 4 G.BABU 5 P.BALAKRISHNAN 6 M.NATARAJAN 7 S.MAHALINGAM 8 N.SEKAR 9 N.SIVARAJ 10 K.CHANDRASEKAREAN 11 E.SIVAPRAKASAM 12 K.K.JANARDHANAN 13 R.BALAKRISHNAN 14 L.PALANIVELU 15 A.SUNDAR RAJ 16 S.CHITTI BABU 17 V.RAMALINGAM 18 A.BALACHANDAR 19 S.VELAYUTHAM 20 V.SRINIVASAN 21 P.S.BOOPATHYRAM 22 N.CHANDRASEKARAN 23 G.KOTHANDAPANI 24 V.RAMALINGAM 25 V.LOGANATHAN 26 S.ARAVAMUDHU 27 S.RUBALINGAM 28 M.SAMPATH 29 G.GAJENDRAN 30 N.KRISHNAN 31 A.FATHIMA JEYASELI 32 M.MD.GHOUSE 33 M.RAMADOSS 34 C.DILLI RAJENDRAN 35 S.HAMSAVALLI 36 S.LAKSHMI .

37 S.HEMALATHA .

35 TO 38 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF K.SRINIVASAN (DIED)

38 S.SARITHA 39 K.VEERARAGHAVALU 40 K.CHANDRASEKARAN 41 S.RAJAGOPAL 42 V.G.ANTONY 43 M.V.RAMIAH 44 S.AMBALAVANAN 45 A.AZIZ SULTAN 46 D.SRINIVASAN 47 P.ARUMUGAM 48 E.STEPHEN GEORGE 49 S.VIJAYA BASKARAN 50 K.KADIRVELU 51 K.PARTHASARATHY 52 V.RAJIAH 53 N.R.KESAVAN 54 K.MOHANRAJ 55 N.LAKSHMI NATHAN 56 R.MADHAVAN 57 N.BABU 58 G.AROKIA RAJ 59 V.THIRUMOORTHY 60 R.BERNARDSHAH 61 G.RAJENDRAN 62 G.APPADURAI 63 T.BALU 64 M.RAMALINGAM 65 R.ARUMUGAM 66 D.DESIGAMANI 67 K.RAMAMOORTHY 68 K.VADIVELU 69 N.DORAIKKANNU 70 V.ANTHONY 71 V.DAMODHARAN 72 K.CHINNADURAI 73 K.GUNASEKARAN 74 V.RAMACHANDRAN 75 C.SUBRAMANIAN 76 M.THANDAPANI 77 V.SELVARAJAN 78 R.KUBERAN 79 M.SESHIAH 80 VIOLET .

81 JOSEPH DANIEL 80 AND 81 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF A.SPAULDING(DIED) 82 A.RUBALINGAM 83 A.MANOHARAN 84 A.RAMACHANDRAN 85 D.VIJAYAKUMAR

86 T.JAYA RAMAN 87 R.PANDURANGAN 88 S.DEVENDRAMANI 89 N.GANAPATHI 1 S.MANOHARAN (TOKEN NO.319) ... PETITIONERS in WP No.30825 of 2015 2 P.DEVARAJ 3 D.DAVID 4 K.DEENAN 5 M.RAJU 6 P.SOMULAL 7 P.S.RAJASEKARAN 8 K.GOVINDARAJULU 9 S.RAJARAMAN 10 ELLAMMA 11 K.RAMANAIAH 12 S.RAJENDRAN 13 G.KANNAN 14 R.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 15 B.NATARAJAN 16 T.SUNDARAMOORTHY 17 DEENADAYALAN 18 V.THAMIZHSELVAM 19 M.KANAKAVALLI 20 A.SRINIVASAN 21 P.GOVINDAN 22 G.VENU 23 P.JAYARAJ 24 A.R.KESAVA KUMAR 25 C.NATARAJAN 26 N.VISWANATHAN 27 G.S.RAMANAN 28 R.MOHAN 29 D.SIGAMANI 30 M.MUGUNDAN 31 N.ERALIYAPPAN 32 D.KOTHANDAPANI 33 L.RAMACHANDRAN 34 D.ANBU ROSE 35 D.DAVID 36 J.UDHAYAKUMAR 37 A.B. PONNIAH 38 E.THANDAVAN 39 N.MUTHUKUMARAN 40 G.PANDURANGAN 41 K.SATHIYA RAO.

42 S.GUNASEKARAN 43 M.DAYALAN 44 G.VASANTHI

45 C.SRI RAMULU 46 V.DAYALAN 47 K.MOHAN 48 P.GANESAN 49 P.JOSEPH 50 V.S.MANIVANNAN 51 P.CHINNARAJU 52 SULAIMAN BASHA 53 C.B. MOHAN 54 C.K.RAMACHANDRAN 55 D.RAJENDRAN 56 K.KRISHNAMOORTHY 57 N.RAVINDRANATH 58 P.SUBBIAH 59 V.ASHOK 60 R.SARASWATHI 61 C.NARASIMHAN 62 A.ABDUL JALEEL 63 C.ANANDAN 64 M.RAMACHANDRAN 65 N.RENUKA 66 N.ETHIRAJ 65 TO 67 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF N.VENKATESAN(DIED) 67 N.DEENADAYALAN 68 K.KAMALANATHAN 69 K.KRISHNA RAO 70 K.KASTHURI 71 D.MAHENDRAN 72 S.NIRMALA 73 S.GUNASELVI 74 S.GOPINATH 75 S.KOTTEESWARAN .

76 S.MOHAN RAJ 72 TO 76 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF K.SRINIVASAN(DIED) 77 K. GANGADARAN 78 K. RAJASEKARAN 79 K. SYED GHOUSE 80 S. PONNURANGAN 81 S. GEORGE 82 G. SACRATIS 83 M. MALLIKA 84 R. GIRIJA 85 M. JAGAN 86 M. VIJAYENDRAN 87 M. GOPI 83 TO 87 ARE LEGAL HEIR OF R. MADURAI MUTHU(DIED)

88 K. JAYAPAUL 89 R. VARADAN 90 K.MUNUSAMY 91 K.GNANESEKARAN 92 A.KONDAYYA 93 NYAMATHULLAH 94 K.GURUSAMY 95 V.RAJARAM 96 M.KUPPUSAMY 97 R.CHANDRASEDKARAN 98 R.PADMANABHAN 99 M.MOHANAN 1 A.NITHIANANTHAM TOKEN NO.626 ... PETITIONERS in WP No.30826 of 2015 2 E.MOHAN 3 MOHAMED AZAM 4 V.K.KOTHANDARAMAN 5 L.JAGANNATHAN 6 N.JAYACHANDRAN 7 K.MOHAN 8 N.SUSEELA 9 J.MOHIDEEN KHAN 10 D.MOHANRAJ 11 D.ARUMUGAM 12 G.SARANGAPANI 13 S.RAJENDRAN 14 S.PADMA 15 S.GOMATHY 16 S.PRAKASH 14 TO 16 ARE LEG AL HEIRS OF S.SIVAKUMAR (DIED) 17 B.JAGANNATHAN 18 K.KRISHNAMOORTHY 19 V.UMA SANKARAN 20 A.MOHAMED ALI 21 J.MANOHARAN 22 V.BASKARAN 23 S.RAVI TOKEN NO.1017 24 M.VIMALA KUMARI 25 SALEENA 26 L.MOHAN 27 H.PALANI 28 S.VEERARAGHAVAN 29 J.JEEVARATHINAM 30 K.RUKMANGATHAN 31 P.S.LAKSHMIKANTHAM 32 U.KOTHANDRAMAN

33 I.GOPINATHAN 34 V.PARIVALLAL 35 D.GOPALAKRISHNAN 36 M.MEIYAZHAGAN 37 K.GUNSEELAN 38 D.VENKATESAN 39 B.YESUDOSS 40 S.NAGU REDDY 41 ABDUL SAMAD 42 C.G.GUNASEKARAN 43 M.SIVARAJ 44 H.UDHAYA KUMAR 45 A.LOURDU MARY 46 M.JAYARAMAN 47 M.SUDHAKARAN 48 K.KALYANASUNDARAM 49 J.KARUNAKARAN 50 B.SINGAIAH 51 N.PUNNIA LINGAM 52 A.RADHAKRISHNAN 53 N.JAGANNATHAN 54 G.MANI 55 J.DASARATHAN 56 M.PRASAD RAO 57 U.MALATHI 58 A.DOMINIC XAVIER 59 MIMUN BEE W/O.LATE.A.MOHAMED GHOUSE 60 P.ETHIRAJ 61 P.KAMALANATHAN 62 T.SAMSON ISRAEL 63 S.VARADAN 64 A.VISWANATHAN 65 D.LAKSHMAN 66 K.ANANTHARAJ 67 I.EBINESAR 68 RUKMANI 69 R.PANNEERSELVAM 70 R.LAKSHMIPATHY 71 T.MARIMUTHU 72 R.SEKAR 73 K.SANTHANAM 74 S.KUMAR 75 C.DEVASENATHIPATHI 76 ABDUL WAJID 77 B.GAFOOR 78 J.VINAYAGAPANI 79 K.PADMANABAN 80 S.GILBERT

1 M.SATHIYANARAYANAN ... PETITIONERS in WP No.30827 of 2015 2 R.VIJAYAKUMAR 3 P.IMMANVEL ELENCHERALATHAN 4 S.GOPALAKRISHNAN 5 K.GANGADHARAN 6 B.KUPPUSWAMY 7 P.GANESAN 8 P.GOVINDAN 9 V.THANGAM 10 D.KALYANASUNDARAM 11 A.CRIMSON 12 K.MURUGAN 13 I.NESAKUMAR 14 W.ANTHONY SMITH 15 S.MEIGNANA MOORTHY 16 N.KAILASAM 17 A.PARAMESWARA MOORTHY 18 D.GURUSAMY 19 O.PITCHAIAH 20 N.KARUNAKARAN 21 D.DHANAPAL 22 M.D.MOHAN 23 R.RAJENDRAN 24 G.JANAKIRAMAN 25 D.EDWIN JOHN 26 D.DHARMALINGAM 27 K.A.VENUGOPAL 28 A.B.MOHIDEEN LABBAI 29 M.MURUGESAN 30 G.SUBRAMANIAN 31 G.POONGAVANAM 32 S.MURUGESAN 33 D.CHITTIBABU 34 A.CHITRAMBALAM 35 A.S.K.KAMALAKANNAN 36 M.MOHAN 37 C.SELVARAJ 38 G.JOTHY RAMAN 39 P.V.KUMARAN 40 KALAVATHY 41 R.MALLIGA 42 J.MAGIMAI DOSS 43 K.PRITHIVI RAJ 44 C.SUBRAMANIAN 45 S.MANIVANNAN 46 K.ANBU 47 S.SUGUMARAN 48 K.BABU 49 R.RAJENDRAN

50 SAKUNTHALA 51 A.S.LAWRENCE JOSEPH 52 SARAL NAVARAJ 53 A.S.ARON ROBERT 54 A.S.SHEILA KUMARI 55 A.S.MERCURY CHARLES 50 TO 55 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF A.SOLOMON (DIED) 56 R.THOMAS NIRMAL MANOHAR 57 EDWARD EZHAKIAL 58 C.BOOPATHY 59 JOSEPH ANTHONY 60 PAKKIRISWAMY 61 R.GHOUSE AHAMED 62 K.SIVARAMAN 63 M.MANORANJITHAM 64 T.S.DHANASEKARAN 65 A.JAYARAMAN 66 R.VASUDEVAN 67 K.CHANDRASEKARAN 68 K.MUTHURAMALINGAM 69 P.R.GUNACHANDRAN 70 S.TAMILMANI 71 A.DEENADAYALAN 72 SIVAGAMI 73 K.P.RAMANAN 74 V.MUNIVELU 75 P.SIVARAJ 76 Y.MUSHTAQ ALI 77 M.SRINIVASAN 78 M.DOSS 79 B.ANANDAN 80 VEDACHALAM 81 M.VEERAPATHIRAN 82 K.SOUNDER RAJU 83 C.THANIKAN 84 S.SOLOMON SAMUEL 85 R.MANOHAR 86 MRS.DHANAMMA 87 D.BOOPATHY 88 L.NATARAJAN 89 C.GANESAN 90 MRS.KOUSALYA 91 K.VIJAYAKUMAR 1 A.RAMESH BABU ... PETITIONERS IN WP.NO. 30828 OF 2015 2 D.SRINIVASAN 3 K.KANNIAPPAN 4 V.SHANTHA

5 V.LALITHA 6 V.SANDHIYA 7 V.SURESH 4 TO 7 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF A.VENUGOPAL (DIED) 8 P.PADMANABAN 9 E.SANTHAKUMAR 10 N.KUPPUSAMY 11 S.VENKATESWARA RAO 12 G.VASUDEVAN 13 S.SHANMUGAM 14 S.KANNAYAN 15 R.ETHIRAJAN 16 C.VENUGOPAL 17 D.BALACHENNIAH 18 K.AZHAGAPPAN 19 M.SIVALINGAM 20 A.DEVADOSS 21 S.PONNUVEL 22 S.RAJENDRAN 23 A.D.SUBRAMANIAN 24 C.PERUMAL 25 E.GOPALAKRISHNAN 26 FRANCIS VINCENT 27 M.RAMADOSS 28 V.GOVINDAN 29 K.CHANDRASEKAR 30 P.VENUGOPAL 31 K.DORAI 32 M.RAMAN 33 S.SAMPATH 34 S.GOVINDARAJ 35 B.NAGESWARA RAO 36 R.MOHAN 37 L.VENKATESWARALU 38 D.SOLOMON DAVID 39 S.KASTHURI 40 J.THIRUGNANAM 41 D.RAMBAR 42 A.ARULDOSS 43 G.KUPPA RAO 44 V.PANNEERSELVAM 45 R.DEVARAJAN 46 P.USHA 47 I.ARUL THOMAS SOUNDARARAJAN 48 C.MALADRI 49 K.THURABUDEEN 50 K.BOOPATHY 51 D.KALIDOSS 52 T.INDRAMOHAN

53 M.MOHAN 54 C.VEMBULI 55 T.BAKTHAVATCHALAM 56 A.DINESH KUMAR 57 M.K.VIJAYAN 58 N.G.GOWRINATHAN 59 J.RAGHU 60 S.THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM 61 K.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 62 G.SAMPATH KUMAR 63 R.MOHANRAM 64 K.VEERAMANI 65 K.SIVASANKARAN 66 A.GUNASEKARAN 67 K.CHOCKANATHAN 68 S.MAHALINGAM 69 S.SARAVANAN 70 D.VIJAYAKUMAR 71 D.JAYARAMAN 72 S.P.PADMANABHAN 73 A.K.RAJAMANNAR 74 P.SELVARANI 75 K.RANGANATHAN 76 N.KRISHNAMOORTHY 1 S.VADIVELU ... PETITIONER in WP No.30829 of 2015 2 V.RANGASAMY 3 PACHAIYAMMAL 4 N.SELVA PALANI 5 K.THANIGACHALAM 6 P.K.KUBERAN 7 K.SANGILI 8 E.G.KING 9 D.BALARAMAN 10 G.SIVAPRAKASAM 11 D.RAMA DOSS 12 M.SUDARSANAM 13 C.VENUGOPAL 14 S.VIJAYAKUMAR 15 V.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 16 K.GANGADHARAN 17 R.DEENADAYALAN 18 A.JAYAKUMAR 19 K.DAMODARAN 20 M.KUMAR 21 D.VINAYAGAM 22 R.KAMALAKKANNAN 23 K.VIJAYAKUMAR 24 N.SUNDARAMOORTHY

25 S.SUNDARARAJAN 26 MAHADOOM ALI 27 V.SELVARAJ 28 G.SUNDARAMOORTHY 29 R.THIRUGNANASAMBANDAMURTHY 30 V.EMAROSE 31 M.MANI 32 S.NANDEESWARAN 33 R.SRINIVASAN 34 S.PARTHASARATHY 35 S.SOMASUNDARAM 36 M.KRISHNA REDDY 37 R.GNANASEKARAN 38 C.H.KAMESHWARA RAO 39 T.ANNAMALAI 40 K.ADIYAPATHAM 41 K.DORAIRAJ 42 P.SEKARAN 43 A.RANGA RAO 44 R.R.SELVAN 45 N.BASKARAN 46 G.RAMU 47 M.VINAYAGAM 48 A.KRISHNAN 49 K.SELVARAJ 50 A.ANTHONY DOSS 51 A.AROKIASAMY 52 P.BHARATHI 53 K.VEDHAMUTHU 54 KANCHANA 55 KOTHANDAPANI 56 A.V.MADHANA MOHAN 57 SHAIK MEHBOOB 58 V.G.PALANI (MSG 1270) 59 P.S.KOTHANDARAMAN 60 P.KOTEESWARA RAO 61 M.BALAKRISHNAN 62 KONDAMMA 63 A.JAYAKUMAR 64 N.EDWIN JAYASEELAN 65 A.NARAYANAN 66 D.GAJENDRAN 67 S.ELANGOVAN 68 S.MOHANAKRISHNAN 69 K.MAHADEVAN 70 A.KANNABIRAN 71 R.PARTHASARATHY 72 N.GANESAN 73 V.MARKANDAN 74 S.MAHARAJAN

75 S.SARGURU DOSS 76 V.RAGHU 77 S.DHANAKOTTI 78 K.RAJASEKARAN 79 R.RAVINDRAN 80 M.SUBRAMANI 81 G.RAMAMURTHY 82 R.GANESAN 83 K.R.SAROJINI 84 K.R.ANITHA 85 K.R.GIRIJA 86 K.R.SHYAM SUNDAR 83 TO 86 LEGAL HEIRS OF K.K. RAGHAVAN(DIED) 87 T.SABAS FERNANDO 88 V.PANNEERSELVAM 89 K.JEEVANANDAM 90 C.SEKARAN 91 N.MANOHARAN 92 S.RAJENDRAN 93 V.NAGAPPAN 94 P.K.SASIDHARAN 95 G.MUTHU 96 P.G.GOLDEN 97 K.RAJAN 98 V.BAKTHAVATCHALAM 99 C.PERUMAL 100 B.MOHANAKRISHNAN 101 D.PONNURANGAM 102 D.IMAYAVARAMBAN 103 C.KUMAR 104 M.ARUMUGAM 105 S.RANGANATHAN 106 Y.VENKATESALU 107 KONDAIAH 108 A.MANICKAVELU 109 CHELLAMMAL 110 P.MURTHY 111 P.CHANDRASEKARAN 112 G.VELAYUTAHM 113 S.ESWARAN 114 S.ISAQ ALEXANDER 115 S.SELVARAJ 116 R.RANI 117 R.SRINIVASAN 118 S.SRINIVASAN 119 R.DANIEL GNANAVOLI 120 CHRISTOPER 121 R.GOVARDHANAN

122 T.C.KESAVALU 123 M.VELAYUTHAM 124 L.T.RATHINAVELU 125 K.ANANDAN 126 P.SIVALINGAM 127 V.NARAYANAN 128 L.PADMANABAN 129 B.KOTHANDAN vs.

1. THE MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LTD., HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.106, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI-600001.

NOW SHIFTED TO NO.1, COOKS ROAD, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI-600 012.

2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI-600 041.

... RESPONDENTS IN ALL WPs COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent herein in pursuant to common order dated 12.09.2014 in Computation Petition Nos.211 to 910 of 2009, 62/2010, 95 to 394/2010, 455 to 621 of 2010 and 1052 to 1143/2010 in so far as holding that the petitioners are not having jurisdiction to claim the relief as prayed for and the 2nd respondent Labour Court cannot decide the entitlement of the petitioners pre-existing right of entitlement which is disputed by the 1st respondent management by dismissing the entire computation petitions quash the same with respect to the petitioners herein and to direct the 1st respondent Management to pay the claim amount to the petitioners herein as prayed for.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Purushothaman in all W.Ps For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan in all W.Ps for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co for R1.

R2-Labour Court

O R D E R

The common order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the second respondent in Computation Petition Nos.211 to 910 of 2009, 62/2010, 95 to 394/2010, 455 to 621 of 2010 and 1052 to 1143/2010 , are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The second respondent/III Additional Labour Court found that the Labour Court cannot decide the entitlement of the workmen and then compute the benefit so adjudicated. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer, and thereafter for the purpose of implementation thereof, and if some ambiguity requires interpretation, that power of interpretation can be decided as incidental to Labour Court's power under Section 33(C), like that of executing court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. Accordingly, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the workman can proceed under Section 33-C (2), only after the Tribunal has adjudicated the right under Section 10. Assigning reasons, the computation petitions filed by the writ petitioners under Section 33-C(2) were rejected.

3. Challenging the said rejection, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the preexisting right of the workmen, was established before the second respondent/Labour Court. To substantiate their contention, the workmen opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the settlement was also received by the workmen. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits as agreed by the Management and the workmen and they have accepted the entire benefits. The dispute arouse on account of the fact that the Management entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with reference to 244 workers, who were in occupation of the quarters allotted by the Management.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that once the benefit is extended to 244 workers, the said benefit cannot be confined and it is to be extended to all the workmen, who opted for VRS. The action of the Management is discriminatory and therefore, the right conferred in respect of 244 workers are to be conferred in respect of all other workmen, including the petitioners in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners reiterates that in respect of 244 workers, 500 sq.ft. land was allotted and in view of the land, that they had been claimed Rs.15,00,000/- and consequently, filed the Computation petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the pre-existing right was established before the Labour Court with reference to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Management and the Union. Therefore, the benefit extended to the 244 workers in the Memorandum of Understanding, has to be extended to all other workmen including the writ petitioner. The Labour Court rejected the said contention by stating that such disputed facts regarding the rights of the workers cannot be adjudicated in a Computation Petition filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, there was no pre-existing right and consequently, rejected the computation petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Management made a submission that the first respondent/Management was referred to BIFR. On 15.06.1996, owing to floods, the operations of the petitioner's Mill at Perambur was suspended. The mill was run on a trail basis for three months. However, owing to various problems it was found that the trial was not successful and therefore, it was closed. On 28.03.1998, settlement was entered under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act providing for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). In May 1998, VRS was announced and more than 4000 workmen, including the respondents, applied under the Scheme and all the dues were settled in favour of the workmen, and they have received the settlement and relieved accordingly.

On acceptance of the settlement, it is contended that the employer-employee relationship ceased to exist and therefore, the employee cannot claim any further right. Only if there are dues in connection with the services already rendered by the workmen, then alone, the same can be adjudicated with reference to any other new dispute or claim. The same cannot be adjudicated as the employer employee relationship ceased to exist, after the acceptance of the VRS benefits, as per the settlement entered into between the Management and the recognized union.

7.

The learned counsel for the first respondent/management contended that on 28.05.2008, Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) was entered between the Unions, quarters Committee and the representatives of 244 employees, who were then occupying the company quarters, providing 500 sq.ft of land to those employees who were in occupation of Company quarters. The workmen who had worked during the trial period in 1997 would be paid wages for those three months as directed by the Industrial Tribunal. The first respondent had acted on the MOU and complied with all its obligations under the MOU.

8. The learned counsel for the first respondent mainly contended that the writ petitioners are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once the petitioners have opted the VRS and received the dues in its entirety , the employer-employee relationship ceased to exist and therefore, they cannot be construed as workmen within the definition of 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

9. It is further contended that there is a pre-existing right and the claim of the writ petitioner is based on the MOU dated 28.05.2008. The said MOU does not provide any benefit to the writ petitioner. Therefore, they had no pre-existing right to file a computation petition under Section 33-C(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

10. It is reiterated that the labour Court cannot adjudicate the issues on merits under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the absence of any pre-existing right, the computation petition filed under Section 33(C)(2) itself is not maintainable. However, the petitioners had not established any such right and therefore, the Labour Court is right in rejecting the computation petition filed by the workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

11. Though the learned counsel for the first respondent/Management solicited the attention of this Court in respect of the ground that the MOU is not discriminatory, this Court is not inclined to consider the same. In view of the fact that all such contentions are disputed by the Competent forum, this Court cannot venture into such an exercise, as those issues are incorrect with reference to the computation petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the writ petitioners themselves have admitted that they had accepted for VRS and the dues were settled in accordance with the terms and conditions of VRS and no dispute was raised with reference to the terms and conditions of the VRS. Further, it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioners were not in occupation of the company quarters allotted.

Thus, the case of the writ petitioners cannot be compared with the case of the 244 employees, who were in occupation of the company quarters, and with reference to their occupation, negotiations were conducted and MOU was entered into between the parties. Extension of benefit is not part of the VRS. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they are also having the same benefit on par with 244 employees who were in occupation of the quarters and the MOU entered into between the Management and the Union.

12. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.05.2008 reveals that "the parties agree that the plan of the land to be allotted will be prepared by the Management in consultation with the Unions and the 244 workers will be given the land by drawal of lots conducted in the presence of Union representatives. The land shall be allotted to the workers authorized by the Unions, within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order from the AAIFR discharging the Company from the purview of BIFR. The land shall be registered within 60 days from the date of allotment upon handing over the vacant possession. Simultaneously, the management has liberty to demolish respective quarters."

13. On a reading of the conditions in the MOU, it is clear that the benefit of 500 sq.ft was extended only to 244 workers, who were in occupation of the company quarters. Thus, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the writ

petitioners had not established any pre-existing right so as to entertain a computation petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the Labour Court found that the merits on issues raised by the writ petitioners in computation petition cannot be decided under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

14. This Court also considered the legal principles in this regard in W.P.No.1611 of 2015 dated 09.09.2019, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

6. In respect of maintainability of the computation petition before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same is to be construed as a preliminary issue in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitionerCorporation contended that the other points raised in the impugned CP order cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that there was no pre-existing right for the purpose of filing the CP before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The entire adjudication of the merits cannot be undertaken in the petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The very section stipulates that "where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government".

7. Thus, there must be an entitlement before entertaining a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, there must be a pre-existing right which is a precondition for entertaining a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the absence of any such right or entitlement, no petition can be entertained for the purpose of computing the monetary value or benefits.

8. It is further to be construed that by way of fresh adjudication, monetary benefits cannot be computed. The merits and the demerits of the issues raised cannot be adjudicated in a petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. All such adjudications are to be done in the manner prescribed before the Competent Court of Law and only if the rights and entitlements are crystallised, then alone a petition under Section 33C(2)

can be entertained and not otherwise. The petition under Section 33C(2) is more or less like an execution petition and therefore, the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act cannot be entertained for the purpose of complete adjudication of the issues. The very scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act is constituted in such a manner that there must be an adjudication, which resulted in establishing a right and only after establishing the right or entitlement, a petition can be filed for computation or claiming the benefits. When the initial Sections of the Act enumerates for adjudication of the issues, then the adjudication of the disputed issues are to be undertaken at the first instance and only thereafter, a petition for claim or computation can be filed.

9. This being the legal principles to be followed, admittedly, there was no such adjudication. In the present case, the writ petitioner-Corporation has disputed the issues. The writ petitioner-Corporation even disputed the eligibility of the workman for the rest salary. Under those circumstances, the factual aspects as well as the relevant Rules are to be adjudicated and only after such process, the claim petition can be entertained and not otherwise.

10. In this regard, it is relevant to cite a judgment of the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P and Another vs. Brijpal Singh [2005-III-LLJ 1003]. The relevant paragraphs-10 and 12 of the judgment cited supra are extracted as under:

"10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed under Section 33-C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under Section 33-A or on a reference under Section 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand [(1978) 2 SCC 144 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 165] held that a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court held that the

right to the money which is sought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer. This Court further held as follows: (SCC p.

150, para 4) "It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the Act."

In the case of Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak [(1995) 1 SCC 235 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 296 : (1995) 29 ATC 93] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 241-42, paras 12-13) "12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and

thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the executing court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.

13.

In these matters, the claim of the respondent workmen who were all daily-rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workmen on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'

being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33-C(2). The mere fact that some other workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is indicative of the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement to the benefit before computation of such a benefit could be sought.

Respondents' claim is not based on a prior adjudication made in the writ petitions filed by some other workmen upholding a similar claim which could be relied on as an adjudication enuring to the benefit of these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some

other workmen to which some reference was casually made, particulars of which are not available in these matters, have, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose.

It must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court as well as the High Court were in error in treating as maintainable the applications made under Section 33-C(2) of the Act by these respondents."

12.

Thus, it is clear from the principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding before a forum to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made.

Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. Therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondent workman cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages.

It is, therefore, impossible for us to accept the arguments of Mrs Shyamla Pappu that the respondent workman can file application under Section 33-C(2) for determination and payment of wages on the basis that he continues to be in service pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 15172 of 1987 dated 28-10-1987. The argument by the learned counsel for the workman has no force and is unacceptable.

although he has not attended the office of the appellants after the stay order obtained by him. The Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in passing the order in question which was rightly impugned before the High Court and erroneously dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has also equally committed a manifest error in not considering the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1993 dated 23-8-1995 and the order dated 9-1-2002 passed by the High Court in CMWP No. 36406 of 1995 as illegal and uncalled for. We do so accordingly."

11. In the case of Tara and Others vs. Director, Social Welfare and Others [(1998) 8 SCC 671], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "2. There is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Labour Court on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ganesh Razak [(1995) 1 SCC 235 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 296 : (1995) 29 ATC 93] that the claim made by the appellants is not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. This is obvious from the fact that the status and nature of employment of the appellants is itself disputed and unless there is a prior adjudication on merits of the status which is the foundation for making the claim for wages at the specified rates, the question of moving an application under Section 33-C(2) for computation of the wages does not arise.

We find that the Labour Court has recorded some findings which may be relevant for the disputed status of the appellants as anganwadi workers/helpers even though it has rightly reached the conclusion that the applications do not lie under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is clear that the question of maintainability of the applications under Section 33-C(2) was required to be determined at the threshold and the question of examining the appellants' claim on merits relating to their status could have been gone into thereafter if the applications were held to be maintainable under Section 33-C(2). In

view of the conclusion rightly reached by the Labour Court that the applications were not maintainable under Section 33-C(2), its other findings relating to the status and nature of employment of the anganwadi workers/helpers were wholly uncalled for. All such findings are, therefore, not to be construed as deciding any point relating to the status of the appellants."

15. In view of the facts and circumstances as well as the legal principles, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that there is no perversity or infirmity in respect of the common order passed by the second respondent/Labour Court on 12.09.2014 in computation petition filed under Section 33-C

(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssb To

1. The Management of Binny Ltd., Having registered office at No.106, Armenian Street, Chennai-600001.

Now shifted to No.1, Cooks Road, Perambur, Chennai-600 012.

2. The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Chennai-600 041.

+2cc to Mr.G.Purushothaman, Advocate, S.R.No. 90147 +1cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, S.R.No. 90177 W.P.No.30818 to 30829 of 2015 GJ(CO) GN(17/12/2019)