← Library
Madras High CourtWA/1658/2022allowed

The General Manager, v. D.Ravichandran

2024-04-01Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu,Honourable Mr.Justice P. Dhanabal6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.04.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and C.M.P.No.11400 of 2022 The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vazhuthareddy, Salamedu, Villupuram Region, Villupuram - 605 602 ... Appellant Vs.

1. D.Ravichandran Driver No.DR.4692, A.Marur Village, S.R.Kuppam Post- 606 203 Nagalur (Via), Villupuram District.

2. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Chennai.

...Respondent

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.365 of 2017 dated 01.08.2021. Page 1/6

For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Arunagiri for R1 Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader for R2.

J U D G M E N T

(The judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Dhanabal,J.) This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.365 of 2017 dated 01.08.2021, which was modified on 02.11.2021.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that already the writ court has passed an order on 01.08.2021, by holding that the petitioner /Transport Corporation is directed to reinstate the 1st respondent/employee in service as a fresh entrant and provide him employment to enable him to report for work from 01.10.2021. Thereafter, without serving notice on the appellant and without filing an application either for clarification or for review, the matter was listed under the caption of being mentioned and the modified order was obtained on 02.11.2021. The modified order is totally contra to the earlier order i.e., The petitioner/Transport Corporation is directed to reinstate the 1st respondent/employee in service "with continuity of service and other terminal benefits, the Management and Workmen will Page 2/6

have to be paid respective arrears to the Provident Fund Department, if any in order to entitle the pension, if the same will be applicable to the First Respondent/ Workman". Therefore, the modification order passed by the writ court without serving notice and without filing any application is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that after passing the order dated 01.08.2021, the 1st respondent herein had represented before the Court and the matter was listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' on 07.11.2021 and 02.11.2021. The date of hearing and the name of the counsel were also printed in the cause list and after proper notice, the writ court has passed the modification order. Therefore, the order passed by the writ court is in order and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court heard the learned counsels for both sides and perused the records.

5. It is an admitted fact that the case was disposed of on 01.08.2021 by passing an order that "the petitioner/Transport Corporation is directed to reinstate the 1st respondent/employee in service as a fresh entrant and provide him employment to enable him to Page 3/6

report for work from 01.10.2021", and thereafter, the present impugned order dated 02.11.2021 was passed by stating that "the Petitioner/ Transport Corporation is directed to reinstate the 1st Respondent/ employee in service with continuity of service and other terminal benefits. The Management and Workmen will have to be paid respective arrears to the Provident Fund Department, if any in order to entitle the pension, if the same will be applicable to the First Respondent/ Workman" and the same is totally contrary to the earlier order dated 01.08.2021.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no notice served on him in respect of the modification order and the appellant was not heard and without hearing the appellant, the order was passed. The respondent also admitted that no application was filed either for clarification or to review the order. Without any application, the matter was listed under the caption 'for being mentioned'. Without filing any application by the parties, the writ court has modified the earlier order dated 01.08.2021 which is totally contrary to the earlier order.

7. It is well settled law that once the order is passed by the Court, the order has to be modified in the manner known to law. In this case, the Page 4/6

order dated 02.11.2021 was modified totally contrary to the earlier order dated 01.08.2021 without any application filed by the parties. Therefore, the order passed by the writ court without any application by the parties is liable to be set aside, but at the same time, the appellant has not filed any appeal challenging the order dated 01.08.2021 and the present appeal is only in respect of the modification order passed on 02.11.2021. Therefore, the earlier order dated 01.08.2021 is intact.

8. In view of the above said discussion, the order passed by the writ court dated 02.11.2021, modifying the earlier order dated 01.08.2021, is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (J.N.B,J.) (P.D.B., J.) Index : Yes / No 01.04.2024 Internet : Yes vsi To The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Chennai.

Page 5/6

J. NISHA BANU, J.

and P.DHANABAL,J.

vsi 01.04.2024 Page 6/6