Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2251
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
M. Unnikrishnan & Another
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), Teynampet, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.16104 of 2000 & W.P.No.7412 of 2004
Decided On : 08-06-2010
For the Petitioner:Balan Haridas & Jayesh B. Dolia, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R2 & R3, Jayesh B.Dolia & R3, Balan Haridas, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the closure of one office does not justify the termination of an employee if the employer's other offices are still operational. Additionally, the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' was emphasized, and the violation of Section 25-G and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was considered.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Termination of Employee - Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 - Payment of Gratuity Act - 41(2) of the Shops Act, Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, Section 25-F of the I.D. Act - 30 days before the appellate Assistant Commissioner - Equal Pay for Equal Work
Fact of the Case:
The employee filed a writ petition against the termination of his services by the Management, claiming that the closure of the Chennai office did not justify his termination as the Delhi office was still operational. The Management also filed a petition regarding the non-entertainment of the gratuity appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the employee was not justified as the Delhi office of the Management was still functioning, and the employee was entitled to be reinstated with backwages and other benefits. The court also dismissed the Management's petition regarding the non-entertainment of the gratuity appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of the employee, non-entertainment of the gratuity appeal, violation of Section 25-G and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and the applicability of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the closure of the Chennai office did not justify the termination of the employee, especially when the Delhi office was still operational. The court also emphasized the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' and the violation of Section 25-G and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the employee was allowed, and the Management's petition was dismissed. The employee was directed to be reinstated at the Delhi office with backwages, continuity of service, and other benefits.
1. Heard both sides.
2. For the sake of convenience parties herein are referred to as the Management and the Employee.
3. The first writ petition (W.P.No.16104/2000) was filed by the Employee (M.Unnikrishnan) against the order passed by the Deputy Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 41(2) of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 (for short Shops Act) made in T.S.E.No.13 of 1997 dated 19.05.1999.
4. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Employee on the ground that there was a reasonable cause for dispensing with the services of the Employee on account of the closure of the Managements office at Chennai. That writ petition was admitted on 22.09.2000. Subsequently, the employee filed an application in WPMP No.23160 of 2001 to implead the third respondent, who is running the business of the Management at New Delhi. They were impleaded vide order dated 04.09.2003.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Employee claimed gratuity before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Chennai and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.G.Application No.122 of 2000. The Controlling Authority held that the Employee was eligible to get gratuity of a sum of Rs.1,03,039/-together with interest at the rate of 10%.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the Management of the Airlines filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai. The Appellate Authority took up the same as P.G.Appeal No.4 of 2004. By an order dated, 09.03.2004, the Appeal was dismissed as it was filed belatedly. It is against that order dated 09.03.2004, the Management filed W.P.No.7412 of 2004. That writ petition was admitted on 24.03.2004. However, this Court dismissed the application for stay.
7. When the matter came up on 12.01.2010, this Court recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the Management that they are willing to take the Employee as Ticket Reservation Officer at their Delhi Office for which proposal, the learned counsel for the Employee had also agreed. It was offered that the Workman will be paid the salary which he was drawing before his termination. But the Employee insisted that he should be paid on par with other employees who are employed at the New Delhi office.
8. Subsequently, after several adjournments as the parties were at variance, it was reported that there was no possibility of a compromise. Hence the matters were heard on the merits of the case.
9. In the writ petition filed by the Management regarding the non-entertainment of the gratuity appeal, it was agreed that there was delay in filing the appeal. It was also not done after due deposit of the amount. But it was stated that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has wide power to entertain the claim notwithstanding the limited power of condonation of delay given to the Appellate Authority. However, this Court is unable to agree with the said submission. In a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Coffee Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 2002 (1) CTC 406, a division bench of this Court specifically referred to the case in MAHESWARI FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in 2001 STC (Vol.121) 272 and held that it was not a good law. In paragraphs 22 and 23, it was held as follows:
"22.....Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2001 STC (Vol.121) 272 (MAHESWARI FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS) and submitted that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India, even though appeal before the appellate authority was filed beyond 60 days (prescribed time of 30 days to file appeal + 30 days for which period
