Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
The Management of Maya Appliances Limited, Old Mahabalipuram Road
Versus
Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court & Another
W.P.No.1483 of 2007, M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 & 1 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on: 02-01-2012
For the Petitioner - Mukunth for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents - R2 - K.M. Ramesh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-employment of the workman was unjustified, and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full backwages, and other attendant benefits.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Employment Rights - I.D.Act - Section 17-B - [Section 17-B of the I.D.Act] - The court found that the non-employment of the workman was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full backwages, and other attendant benefits. The court held that the so-called alternative employment offered by the Management was not a valid alternative employment as per industrial jurisprudence.
Fact of the Case:
The workman lost three fingers in a work-related accident and was certified by the Medical Board to have a 60% loss of earning capacity. The Management claimed that they offered alternative employment, but the workman refused. The Labour Court found that the workman was denied employment when he reported for duty and that the termination was unjustified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-employment of the workman was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full backwages, and other attendant benefits.
Issues: The issues included whether there was denial of employment, whether the workman had abandoned service, and whether he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the so-called alternative employment offered by the Management was not a valid alternative employment as per industrial jurisprudence. It also found that the termination was not due to any misconduct or medical invalidation, and therefore, it was a clear case of retrenchment without fulfilling the condition precedent for effecting the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the workman was at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the Management and claim any balance amount, if any, in the manner known to law. There was no order as to costs.
1. The petitioner is the Management in this writ petition. They have challenged an Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.680 of 2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court found that the non-employment of the second respondent workman was unjustified and he was entitled for re-instatement with continuity of service, full backwages and other attendant benefits. It is this impugned Award dated 31.05.2006 is the subject matter of the writ petition.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 11.01.2007, this Court admitted the writ petition and also recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the Management that they had already deposited the backwages from 19.05.2000 to till August 2005 pursuant to the order of this Court earlier. An interim stay was also granted on the same day. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 24.04.2007 with liberty to the workman to seek for modification. Accordingly, the workman filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2008 to vacate the interim stay and that application was directed to be posted on top of the list on 30.04.2008. For reasons best known, the matter was not listed. The Workman also filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 2008 seeking for direction to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act. In that application, a direction was given to the Management to pay the last drawn salary from the date of filing of the writ petition viz., 10.01.2007. The arrears of last drawn wages from 10.01.2007 till April 2008 was also directed to be paid within four weeks. It is agreed that the said order has been complied with by the Management.
3. The facts leading to the non-employment of the workman were as follows:-
The workman was employed in the Stores Department from 11.08.1997 and thereafter, he was posted to the machine shop as an Operator and his last drawn salary was Rs.2300/- per month. The workman was covered by the provisions of the ESI Act and he was an insured person. On 23.03.2000 at about 1.15 a.m, while he was operating the Semi Automatic Injection Moulding Machine, his fingers on the right got inside and had crushed in the machine and as a result, he had lost his three fingers. He was immediately rushed to the Government Stanley Hospital and he was also on medical leave as per the ESI Leave facilities. The Medical Board attached to the ESI Corporation certified the loss of earning capacity of the workman at 60%. He was also given fitness certificate to rejoin duty. But when he went to report for work, he was not given any employment and he was unemployed.
4. It was the stand of the Management that notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision for re-employing a disabled employee, they had agreed to send him to work in their sister company by name T.A.Taylor Private Limited but the workman refused to go. It was the stand of the workman that he was not given any employment in the petitioner company and even the other company where they directed him to go, he was directed to go and work as Trainee Employee for which he stoutly refused. This stalemate lead to the workman raising an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation. The Conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation gave a failure report. On the strength of the failure report, the workman filed a claim statement before the first respondent Labour Court.
5. The Labour court registered the dispute as I.D.No.680 of 2000 and ordered notice to the petitioner Management. The petitioner Management had filed a counter statement disputing the maintainability of the dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act as according to them, there was no industrial dispute in the eye of law and they were not responsible for any non-employment. Despite being offered an alternative employment in another company, it was the workman who remained absent.
6. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.
