S.Prabhakaran v. M/S.United India Shoe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI S.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner -vs1. M/s.United India Shoe Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Bottom Division Selur, Ambur.
2. The Principal Labour Court Vellore.
... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.18/2008 dated 07.02.2011 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to re-instate the petitioner with back wages and other attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali For Respondents : Mr.A.Venkatesh Kumar For M/s.Gupta & Ravi (R1) R2-Court
O R D E R
The petition has been filed seeking to quash the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.18/2008, dated 07.02.2011 and to direct the first respondent to re-instate the petitioner with back wages and other 1/5
attendant benefits.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent has appointed as Trainer for two years. During the said period, the work of the petitioner was good and therefore, he was appointed as technician on 01.09.2001. Due to medical treatment undergone by the petitioner for jaundice, he availed leave and submitted the records. However, the first respondent refused to permit him to join duty and subsequently, terminated from service. Hence, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Vellore for reinstate in service with continuity of service and backwages and all other attendant benefits and the conciliation efforts were failed and the officer submitted the failure report. However, the same was dismissed and the first respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner appointed as technician by the first respondent in the year 1991 and he rendered four years of service. Due to ill health, he made application for medical leave and the management refused to grant medical leave and terminated from service, which is not sustainable one. The Labour Court also, 2/5
without considering entire facts, rejected the petition, which needs to be interference.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent company was closed and reported no instructions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner was entered into service with the first respondent in the year 1991. For his alleged unauthorized absent, he was terminated from service, for which, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and the same was rejected. For reinstatement of service, the petitioner has come before this Court. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the company has closed now and the said issue was landed before the NCLT.
7. In such view of the matter, the order of reinstatement does not arise. Considering the quantum of compensation, the Labour Court awarded for a sum 3/5
of Rs.30,000/-, which is very meager and this Court is inclined to modify the same for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner on priority basis.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 26.07.2023 Rli Index: Yes/No NCS : Yes/No To
1. M/s.United India Shoe Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Bottom Division Selur, Ambur.
2. The Principal Labour Court Vellore.
4/5
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Rli 26.07.2023 5/5