Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Management, Hari And Co. - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No. 1156 of 2017 and W.P. (MD) No. 1501 of 2017
Decided on : 21-06-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M/s. A. Jinasenan, Advocate
Headnote:
Service Matter – Contract employee - seeking to quash the impugned order - 1st respondent to decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the 2nd respondent is a contract employee receiving retainer salary or not - Employees working as Drivers in their Management numbering about 70 and above have filed Claim Petitions before the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Tirunelveli on the ground that salary paid to them is meagre and that they are entitled to the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and above depending on their entry into service. The Claim Petitions numbering 30 have been settled as withdrawn before the Lok Adalat and the remaining 42 Claim Petitions are pending – Held, attitude of the Management in seeing the pulse of the Judge and taking time and seeking to withdraw the Writ Petition cannot be accepted. This Court could have dismissed the Writ Petition “without any liberty”. There is a possibility of the petitioner/Management filing a Writ Appeal and trying to scrap the observation without liberty and filing one more Writ Petition for the same cause of action. Instead of such a chance, I thought that the matter has got to be decided on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management ought to have stated that he has got paramount duty to the Court than to his client and should have requested to pass orders on merits. Instead of doing so, the act of the learned counsel seeking withdrawal of the matter is not appreciated and the act is deprecated. A lawyer must understand that he/she is here to assist the Court and only based on the assistance given by them, the Court can render justice - No document has been produced by the petitioner/Management before this Court pertaining to the settlement of the claims to any one of the workers concerned in this Writ Petition - It is made clear that if the petitioner/Management is unable to pay the costs imposed by this Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, any of their properties or the personal properties of the official concerned may be attached for payment of the same - Writ Petitions are dismissed
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, both the cases are taken up for disposal by a common order.
2. W.P. No. 1156 of 2017 is filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in unnumbered I.A. of 2016 in C.P. No. 24 of 2016, dated 03.01.2017 and for a further direction to the 1st respondent to decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the 2nd respondent is a contract employee receiving retainer salary or not. Thereafter, the petitioner/Management filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1501 of 2017 for a direction to the 1st respondent to send the Claim Petitions filed by respondents 2 to 42 to the National Lok Adalat to be held on 11.02.2017 at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
3. The case of the petitioner is that employees working as Drivers in their Management numbering about 70 and above have filed Claim Petitions before the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Tirunelveli on the ground that salary paid to them is meagre and that they are entitled to the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and above depending on their entry into service. The Claim Petitions numbering 30 have been settled as withdrawn before the Lok Adalat and the remaining 42 Claim Petitions are pending.
4. The petitioner/Management filed a detailed counter contending that the employees are Retainer Salary employees and they have been paid on contract basis depending upon the execution of work and that the amount received by the employees under different heads is more than what they have claimed in the Claim Petitions.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application to decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the employees are contract employees receiving retainer salary or not. Since the said I.A. presented before the 1st respondent on 14.12.2016 was not received, the petitioner filed a Transfer Petition in Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No. 575 of 2016 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 20.12.2016 directed the 1st respondent either to receive or reject the said I.A. within two weeks. Accordingly, the 1st respondent received the I.A. and dismissed the same on 03.01.2017 as unnumbered, on the ground that it is not necessary to decide the issue whether Drivers are contract employees or not. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with W.P. No. 1156 of 2017.
6. Heard Mr. A. Jinasenan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material documents available on record.
7. As far as W.P.(MD) No. 1501 of 2017 is concerned, it is the categorical statement of the petitioner/Management that the workers are not willing for Mediation. However, it is submitted that unless and otherwise, the respondents/workmen agree for referring the matter to Mediation, it cannot be referred. That apart, the prayer in the Writ Petition is that there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to send the Claim Petitions filed by respondents 2 to 42 to the National Lok Adalat to be held on 11.02.2017 at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Since the Lok Adalat scheduled on 11.02.2017 is already over, the relief of mandamus sought by the petitioner/Management cannot be granted. If the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 1501 of 2017 is allowed, several Managements like the petitioner would try to stall the entire proceedings under the guise of Lok Adalat or Mediation and this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner/Management, as it is devoid of merits.
8. As far as W.P.(MD) No. 1156 of 2017 is concerned, the main contention addressed by the petitioner/Management before this Court is that the claim petition itself is not maintainable. However, it has been stated by the learned counsel that the issue before the Labour Court is whether the application claiming minimum wages can be maintained before it, when there is a specific enactment namely, Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
9. Now, the only issue before this
