Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 455
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
K. Krishnamurthy & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Management, Veeraraghava Textiles (Private) Limited, Kancheepuram rep.by its Proprietor Azhagappa Chetty & Another – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 17869, 17870, 17871, 17872, 17873, 17874 & 17875 of 2014
Decided On : 22-01-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.P. Sekar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Thambuswamy, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of providing clear and relevant evidence to support claims in labour disputes, and the significance of agreements between employers and workers' unions in determining entitlement to salary arrears.
Headnote:
Salary Arrears - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, Section 18(1) - Section 33 - Section 25(o) - Section 25(o)(6) - Section 33(C)(2) - Section 18(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee, claimed salary arrears from the respondent company for the period of January 2001 to October 2006. The respondent refuted the claim, citing financial crises and an agreement with the workers' union.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim for salary arrears. It also noted the respondent's evidence of an agreement with the workers' union and the lack of work and payment after 2000.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the claimed salary arrears from the respondent company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim lacked supporting evidence and that the respondent's evidence of an agreement with the workers' union and lack of work and payment after 2000 undermined the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the 2nd Additional Labour Court, Chennai, dated 09.01.2014, was confirmed.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that he was working under the respondent Company from 20.09.1989 as Doffer. The said company was functioning up to 2000. Thereafter, the respondent Company was unable to run adequately. Hence, another company namely “M/s. MAHIR SPINNING MILLS” was conducting the respondent company namely Veeraraghava Textiles, Private Limited. During, that period the Company was unable to pay the Electricity Connection Charges around several Crores to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thereafter, no one came forward to run the Company. The petitioner further states that the respondent's company had not paid the salary to the petitioner from the year of 2000. The petitioner had received a sum of Rs.3,715/- as his last pay drawn salary. Further the petitioner is entitled to service salary arrears from January 2001 to October 2006 in total Rs.2,60,050/- from the respondent company as salary arrears. Hence, the petitioner has filed a Claim Petition No.37 of 2007, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein namely the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
2. The respondent Company had filed a counter statement and refuted the said claim petition. The respondent stated that due to financial crises the respondent company was unable to run. Therefore, there was an agreement made between the workers and the management, as per the agreement, the arrears of salary have been paid to the workers. Further, the company was not running from the year of 2000. The petitioner is also working as an employee for his personal gain, as such the petitioner is not entitled to secure any relief from the respondent herein.
3. After recording the statements of both parties, the Labour Court had framed an issue: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the claim amount from the respondent?. On the side of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and he had marked three exhibits namely: (1) Salary Slip; (2) Respondent's letter to the petitioner; (3) Order of the Additional Labour Court. On the side of the respondent one witness was examined as RW.1 and twenty four exhibits were marked namely: Copy of the claim petition No.36/2008 filed by the petitioner; (2) salary slip of the petitioner for the month of November 2002 and exhibit 3 +4 salary certificate for the month of December 2002 and January 2003 respectively of the petitioner and the authorization letter has been issued to the respondent company in the name of RW.1. Exhibit 6 and 7 are salary slips for the month of January 1997 and December 1999 respectively of the petitioner. Exhibit-8 + 9 settlement copies. Exhibit-10+11 the lease company namely “MIHIR SPINNING MILL” wrote letters to the concerned workers and exhibit-12 paper publication, exhibit-13-prior notice sent to the petitioner by the Management regarding closure of the company exhibit 14+15 copies of the settlement, exhibit-16-Management had written a letter to the petitioner regarding an agreement, exhibit-17-copy of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, exhibit-18 copy of the claim petition; exhibit-19 copy of the petitioner letter regarding the withdrawal of claim petition No.1291 of 2007, exhibit-20 Labour Inspector sent a letter to the management; exhibit-21 one Subramaniam wrote a letter to the Commissioner for Provident fund; exhibit-22 letter of provident fund commissioner; exhibit-23 one Munuswamy + 15 others filed a petition in C.P.No.1291 of 2007, on the file of 1st Additional Labour Court.
4. PW.1 had adduced evidence stating that he had joined duty in the respondent company in the year of 1989 as Doffer. Further, the respondent Company was running in a fair manner upto the year of 2000. Thereafter, the said Company was unable to run profitability. At this point of time, one company namely M/s. MIHIR SPINNING MILL came forward to run the company during that period the said company was unable to pay several crores of rupees to the Tami
