At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
For the Petitioners: K.M. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Ravindran for T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the Second Respondent in I.D. No.57 of 2001 and quash its impugned award made therein dated 24.11.2006 insofar as it has denied to the First Petitioner back-wages and other attendant benefits.)
1. The original Petitioner is a Workmen, who, aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No.57 of 2001, dated 24.11.2006, filed the present Writ Petition. By the impugned award, the Labour Court while granting reinstatement with continuity of service, denied back-wages.
2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 4.3.2008 and notice was ordered to the First Respondent. The First Respondent has also appeared through Counsel. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the matter was sent to the Lok Adalat for resolution of the dispute between the parties. As the Lok Adalat could not resolve the differences, the matter has come back for determination by this Court on merits.
3. During the pendency or the Writ Petition, unfortunately, the Petitioner passed away and his legal representatives, namely his wife and two daughters, have filed an LR Application in M.P> No.1 of 2011 and that was also ordered by this Court on 23.6.2011.
4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Labour Court was right in depriving the back-wages to the Workman while ordering reinstatement.
5. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.M. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the impleaded Petitioners and Mr. S. Ravindran for M/s. T.S. Gopalan and Co., for the First Respondent Management.
6. The Labour Court while ordering reinstatement, in Paragraph (14) found that despite the Management sending notice to report for duty to the Workman, it is the Workman who had not reported for work. This was evidenced from Ex.W30. Therefore, having not joined duty when notice was given by the Management, it is not correct on his part to demand full back-wages for the said period.
7. Since the parties have not filed the original records, this Court recorded the Registry to summon the records relating to the main Industrial Dispute and accordingly, the records have been circulated for perusal by this Court. Ex.W30 is a Letter sent by the Management asking the Workman to report for work. The said Letter was preceded by Ex.W29. The Workman is that Letter nowhere stated that unless wages on a par with other Workers is given, he will not come forward to report for work. Even in the cross-examination of W.W.1, the Workman did no say as to who prevented him from reporting for work. In the cross-examination of M.W.1, he clearly denied that the Workman was prevented from reporting for work.
8. In the light of these and evidence recorded, it cannot be said that the Labour Court was wrong in not granting back-wages. The Labour Court has taken note of all relevant facts and this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Co
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nstitution of India cannot interfere with such finding of fact rendered by the Labour Court. This Court is also satisfied that there is no perversity in the finding of the Labour Court. In the light of the above, there is no case made out. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.