Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3295

High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
The General Manager(Law) Southern Railway Moor Market Complex & Others
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court & Others
W.P.Nos.6231 to 6237 of 2009 & 16905 of 2011 & M.P.Nos. 1,2,2,2,2 & 2 of 2009 & 1,1,1,1,1,1 of 2010
Decided on : 19-07-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Su. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 – Court, R2 - S.T. Varadarajulu, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of pending proceedings under Section 33 of the I.D. Act as a prerequisite for maintaining complaints under Section 33A.

Headnote:
I.D. Act - Non-Employment - Section 33, Section 33A, Section 25F - The court discussed the provisions of Section 33, Section 33A, and Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It highlighted the requirements for maintaining complaints under Section 33A and the implications of non-compliance with Section 25F in cases of termination.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, General Manager (Law), Southern Railway, Chennai, challenged the order of the Central Labour Court regarding non-employment of contesting respondents, citing non-compliance with Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaints under Section 33A of the I.D. Act were not maintainable due to the absence of pending proceedings under Section 33 of the Act, and subsequently set aside the awards.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of complaints under Section 33A of the I.D. Act regarding non-employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the complaints were not maintainable as there were no pending proceedings under Section 33 of the Act, which is a prerequisite for maintaining complaints under Section 33A.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, the awards passed in complaints were set aside, and the connected writ petition seeking improved relief was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :-

1. In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioner is the General Manager (Law),Southern Railway, Chennai and they are aggrieved by a common order passed by the Central Labour Court in complaint Nos.2 to 8 of 2000 dated 29/11/2008.

2. The first respondent, Central Government Labour Court entertained the complaint at the instance of the contesting second respondents in terms of Section 33-A of the I.D.Act and after adjudicating the said complaint, it felt that the non-employment of the contesting respondents was illegal and contrary to Section 25F of the I.D Act, inasmuch as the contesting respondents have completed 240 days of continuous work, the petitioner-Railways have not followed the procedure, while dismissing them from service. The termination was illegal and they are entitled to get Rs.1 lakh as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It is this order dated 29.11.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the first batch of writ petitions.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 23.04.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, the said order was modified directing the petitioner-railways to deposit 50%of the award amount to the credit of each complaint before the Central Government Labour Court, within a period of six weeks.

4. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing counsel for the Railways submitted that they have complied with the interim order.

5. Though the contesting respondents filed an application for vacating the order, the said interim order has not been vacated.

6. When this miscellanous petition came up for hearing on 14.07.2011, S.T.Varadhajulu, learned counsel appearing for the workmen took time and hence the matter was directed to be listed today for final disposal,.

7. In the meantime, he had filed a writ petition in WP.No.16905 of 2011 on behalf of the seven workman challenging the very same award dated 29.11.2008 wherein, by which, the Labour Court has ordered only retrenchment compensation and not reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, they wanted the award to be set aside and also for a direction to the petitioner Railways/second respondent to reinstate them in service with continuity of service.

8. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned standing counsel appearing for the railways takes notice on behalf of the second respondent in that writ petition.

9. It must be noted that hereinafter the parties are referred to as the 'Management of the railways' and the 'workmen'. The workmen involved in these writ petitions were engaged as 'box boy'. They have filed a claim petition before the Labour Court being C.C.P..No.25 of 1995 claiming difference of pay, weekly rest wages, particulars of leave salary and wages for public and National festival holidays. The Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.3960/- as due and payable to the workmen. It also transpires that the said claim petition came to be challenged by the management of the railways in W.P.No.1857 of 2000 and this Court by order dated 30.1.2009 set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and held that unless and until there is a pre existing right for the workman, the question of maintainability under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act claiming difference in wages will not arise.

10. It is when those claim petitions were pending, curiously the workmen have filed complaints under Section 33A of the I.D.Act before the same Labour Court. The said complaints were entertained in terms of Section 33A of the I.D.Act. It is not clear as to how such complaints are maintainable. Under Section 33A of the I.D.Act, if an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 of the Act during the pendency of proceedings before a Conciliation officer or Board, or an Arbitrator or a Labour Court and if the employee is aggrieved by such contravention, he can make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document