Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 234
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
Management, The Coimbatore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., represented by its General Manager
Versus
The Presiding Officer & Others
W.P.Nos.5578 of 2003 & 5587 to 5589 of 2003 & W.P.M.P.Nos.7189, 7190, 7192, 7193, 7195 & 7196 of 2003
Decided on : 19-01-2011
For the Petitioners:P. Anbarasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R3 – Bharathchakaravarthy, Advocate, R1 – Court, R2 - N. Senthilkumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
Employees are entitled to claim wages and benefits for the period after the expiry of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and diligence is required in approaching the writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - G.O.(Ms)No.212, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 06.08.1997 - Section 33-C(2) - Section 12(3) settlement - Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 224 employees - Financial benefits, additional compensation, additional provident fund, additional leave encashment - Wages, arrears of salary, refund of security deposit - Financial benefits disbursed after time lag - Agitation by employees - Talks with District Collector - Extension of employment - Claim petitions - Severance of employer-employee relationship - Notional extension of service - Closure of petitioner's stores - Claim petitions contested by Management - Labour Court's order - Payment of terminal benefits - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Stale claim - Repayment of security deposit - Existing right of workman - Suspension allowance - Money due - Backwages - Interest on claim - Diligence in approaching writ jurisdiction - Writ petitions dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., launched a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees. The employees who availed the scheme faced delays in receiving their retirement benefits, leading to agitation and claim petitions. The employer contested the claim petitions, arguing that the employer-employee relationship had already ended. The Labour Court awarded amounts to the employees, which the petitioner challenged in writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the employees were entitled to claim wages and benefits for the period after the expiry of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as per the arrangement made between the employer and employees. The Court also noted the employer's lack of diligence in approaching the writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: Delay in payment of retirement benefits, jurisdiction of Labour Court, validity of claim petitions, entitlement of employees to wages and benefits after scheme expiry, diligence in approaching writ jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The employees were entitled to claim wages and benefits for the period after the expiry of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Court found the employer's approach to the writ jurisdiction lacking in diligence.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
1. The petitioner (in all the writ petitions) has filed the present writ petitions seeking for the relief of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent Labour Court relating to its order dated 24.10.2001 in C.P.Nos.67 of 1999, 71 of 1999, 87 of 1999 and 75 of 1999 and also the records of the second respondent relating to his order in No.30491/D1/2002 Labour and Employment Department dated 30.10.2002 and quash the said orders dated 24.10.2001 and 30.10.2002.
2. Before proceeding to consider the matters on merits, the necessary facts are stated as hereunder:
The petitioner/Management (The Coimbatore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.,) in all the writ petitions, has launched the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the employees and a large number of employees have opted to come under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The retirement benefits of the employees have been paid borrowing funds and mortgaging the properties. The respective third respondents in all the writ petitions are the employees who availed the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
3. The petitioner/Management announced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per G.O.(Ms)No.212, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 06.08.1997. 224 employees have given their options to go on Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The said scheme has been valid for a period of nine months from 15.08.1997 to 14.05.1998. The petitioner/Management relieved the employees including the respective third respondents in all the writ petitions on the specified last date of expiry of the scheme i.e. 14.05.1998. The financial benefits under the scheme have been disbursed to the employees from 29.07.1998 onwards due to some time lag in securing the finance. In the meantime, the employees have gone on agitation and refused to receive the relieving orders. As such, the petitioner/Management has issued a publication in the local newspaper stating that the employees were relieved from 14.05.1998. When the agitation of the employees has been in the peak and the situation has been tense, the District Collector has intervened and the talks have been held between the employees and the Management in his presence, but no settlement has been made. However, the petitioner/Management in order to purchase peace and tranquility, has agreed to extend the employment of the respective third respondents in all the writ petitions and others upto 10.06.1998 when there has been no work. All the financial benefits have been calculated upto 10.06.1998 and settled to the third respondents in all the petitions on 30.11.1998.
4. The employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the third respondents in all the petitions has been severed on 14.05.1998 when the applications of the third respondents in all the petitions have been accepted. However, the notional extension of service has been given upto 10.06.1998 purely on humanitarian grounds in view of the unavoidable delay in the payment of terminal benefits. Several units of the petitioner/ Management Stores have been closed in December 1998 and the employees have no work at all in the establishment of the Stores.
5. The third respondents in all the petitions and others have projected the Claim Petitions in C.P.Nos.62 of 1999 to 146 of 1999, claiming the benefits hereunder:
(a) Wages for the period from 10.06.1998 to 30.11.1998.
(b) Arrears of salary under the 12(3) settlement made in 1993.
(c) Refund of Security Deposit.
(d) Financial benefits by way of additional compensation, additional provident fund and additional leave encashment from 10.06.1998 to 30.11.1998.
6. The petitioner/Management has contested the claim petitions on the basis that the claim petitions are not maintainable as per Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because of the fact that the employer and the employee relationship has already got severed on 14.05.1998. Further, no wages have been due for the period of 'No work, No p
