Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 103
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SHIVAPPA
Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli - Appellant
Versus
Chairman-Cum-Ranganatha Iyer V. S - Respondents
W.A. No. 1086/1994
Decided On : 03 February 1998
A claim for retrenchment compensation under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is barred by delay and laches if it is filed after a long lapse of time, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(2) - RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION - WORKMAN - DELAY AND LACHES - PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION - ARBITRARINESS - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public sector undertaking, terminated the services of the respondent, an Assistant Engineer, on the ground of inefficiency and incorrigibility. The respondent filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Central Government Labour Court (Tribunal) and later before the Principal Labour Court, Madras, claiming retrenchment compensation. Both the courts dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the respondent was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. The respondent then filed two writ petitions in the High Court, challenging the order of termination and seeking retrenchment compensation. The learned Single Judge allowed the second writ petition and granted relief to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court erred in allowing the writ petition and granting relief to the respondent. The respondent was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, he was not entitled to retrenchment compensation. The termination of the respondent's services was not arbitrary or unconstitutional, as it was done in accordance with the terms of his employment contract. The respondent's claim was also barred by delay and laches, as he had approached the High Court for the first time in 1984, though he was dismissed from service in 1975.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the right to dispense with the services of the respondent? 2. Whether the claim of the respondent can be entertained after a long lapse of nine years, that too, when he has not challenged the act of termination at the initial point of time?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellant had the right to dispense with the services of the respondent, as it was done in accordance with the terms of his employment contract. 2. The claim of the respondent cannot be entertained after a long lapse of nine years, as it is barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The parties to bear their own cost.
C. SHIVAPPA, JThe appellant-Corporation is a public sector undertaking under the Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India. The respondent herein filed two writ petitions W.P. Nos. 9906 and 9907 of 1984. Writ petition No. 9906 of 1984 sought for quashing the order of the Labour Court in Claim Petition No. 966 of 1980. Writ Petition No. 9907 of 1997 sought for quashing the proceedings bearing No. 17439/RI-3/75-16, dated November 7, 1975, The learned Single Judge, while dismissing Writ Petition No. 9906 of 1984, allowed the second Writ Petition No. 9907 of 1984 and granted the relief to the respondent herein. The appellants are aggrieved by the said order in Writ Petition No. 9907 of 1984. Hence, this Appeal.
2. Few facts are necessary to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal. The Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, issued a notification to all public sector undertakings, including the appellant herein, wherein a policy direction was given to the public sector undertakings to implement the twelve point programme for increasing the efficiency of the public sector undertakings. Item 8 of the said programme relates to "weeding out of 'dead wood' among officers, staff and workers" in the public sector undertakings.
3. On the foot of the above direction, a Committee consisting of Shri. D. P. Gupta, the then Director (Mines) as its Chairman, Shri V. Ramanujachari, the then Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer and Shri S. Srinivasan, I.A.S. the then Joint Chief of Personnel Administration, was constituted by the Corporation to evaluate the efficiency and performance of higher grade employees in the Corporation. After careful evaluation of the performance of the higher grade employees, the Committee submitted a detailed report on September 26, 1975. The Committee, in its report, identified certain officers as being inefficient and determined that to retain them is not in the interest of the Corporation and recommended dispensing with the services of certain higher grade employees. The respondent herein is one of such persons found to be inefficient and incorrigible. The services of the respondent were dispensed with by an order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in Proc. No. 17439/RI-3/75-16, dated November 7, 1975 by giving three months' pay in lieu of three months' notice. This was done in terms of the procedure directed to be adopted by the Board of Directors, in their 111th Meeting held at Neyveli, on October 30, 1974.
4. After three years, the respondent moved the Central Government Labour Court (Tribunal) by filing C.P. No. 82 of 1978 claiming relief under Section33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for retrenchment compensation on the basis that he was a 'workman'. The Claim Petition was dismissed on the ground that the respondent herein was not a workman under Section2(s) of the Act and secondly that he had approached a wrong forum.
5. In 1980, the respondent moved the Principal Labour Court, Madras, by a Claim Petition No. 966 of 1980 under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Act, again, claiming to be a workman and seeking retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition on the ground at the respondent is not a workman under Section2(s) of the Act, on two grounds that the nature of his work was managerial and supervisory and his salary of Rs. 1, 100/- exceeds the limit of the Act by Rs. 500/- per month (before Industrial Disputes Act, 1982 had come into effect). In 1984, the respondent herein resorted to the two writ petitions before this Court.
6. The case of the respondent herein is that he had been in the services of the Corporation as a Junior Engineer (Civil) and in due course, was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from November 1, 1971. After sixteen years of continuous service, he was suddenly subjected to impugned order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and informed that his serv
