Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
No.XNC-584, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Cooperative Stores Ltd., rep.by its Special Officer - Petitioner
Versus
A. Perumal and Anr. - Respondents
W.P.No.71 of 2012
Decided On : 29-11-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Thangaraju.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K.R. Ravi, Labour Court.
The court upheld the Labour Court's finding of a master-servant relationship, affirming reinstatement over compensation despite the petitioner's claims of non-employment.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition challenging the award of reinstatement and back wages by the Labour Court - The petitioner contended the absence of master-servant relationship, while the Labour Court found the respondent to be a workman based on evidence including compounding notices. (Paras 2, 5, 9, 12)
(B) Employment Law - The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to grant reinstatement despite the petitioner's arguments regarding the absence of employment records and the nature of termination. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Store, challenged the Labour Court's award reinstating the 1st respondent, who claimed to be wrongfully terminated. The petitioner argued there was no master-servant relationship, while the Labour Court found otherwise based on evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court's conclusion regarding the existence of a master-servant relationship was based on a fair appreciation of the evidence, including compounding notices issued to the 1st respondent.
Issues: The main issues were whether the 1st respondent was an employee of the petitioner and whether reinstatement was appropriate given the circumstances of termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Labour Court's findings were justified and that the absence of specific issues did not prejudice the petitioner, affirming the reinstatement decision.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(R.N. Manjula, J.)
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARI, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Award made in I.D.No.682/99 dated 04.03.2010 on the file of I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same.)
Heard Mr.M.Thangaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.R.Ravi, learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
2. The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, Co-operative Store, challenging the award passed by the I Additional Labour Court dated 04.03.2010 in I.D.No.682/99. On an industrial dispute raised by the 1st respondent challenging the order of termination dated 04.11.1995, before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the labour Court passed an award of reinstatement, along with back wages and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner / Management has filed this Writ Petition stating that there is no master and servant relationship between the 1st respondent and the petitioner / Management
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the labour court has omitted to frame a specific issue as to the status of the 1st respondent as a workmen with the petitioner cooperative store. It is claimed that the permanent employees of the cooperative stores such as salesman / packers some times engage outsiders, without the knowledge or permission of the employer to share their work burden and hence, the 1st respondent, might have been engaged in such an unauthorized manner.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent is very much an employee and he was employed in the petitioner co-operative stores in his capacity as a workman and he has proved the said fact before the labour Court.
5. On perusal of the award of the labour Court, it is seen that the labour Court has framed an issue as to whether the 1st respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages and all other attendant benefits, though the Court has not framed a specific issue as to the existence of the master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. However, the Court has adverted into the issue during the course of its discussion on the other issue and had given a finding that the 1st respondent was very much, a workman in the petitioner co-operative store.
6. The petitioner's witness, who was examined as M.W.1, has stated during his cross examination, that the 1st respondent, along with other staff of the society have been imposed with a punishment by serving a notice by the Deputy Collector and Legal Metrology, Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures Control Department, Chennai. If the 1st respondent is a stranger, the notice need not have been issued to him along with the other workmen Krishnaswamy and M.W.1-Chittibabu, who is the manager.
7. In fact, M.W.1-Chittibabu was aware of the fact that the father's name of the 1st respondent is Arjunan. The compounding notice issued by the Deputy Collector and Legal Metrology, Chennai to the 1st respondent and others has been marked as Ex. W2. The 1st respondent, M.W.1-Chittibabu and Krishnasamy were found fault with by the Deputy Collector and Legal Metrology, Chennai, that in the petitioner co-operative store, they had distributed kerosene to the consumers without measuring it properly and there was a shortage in the kerosene purchased by a consumer from the petitioner co-operative store.
8. The above compounding notice was dated 04.11.1991. Subsequently, the proceedings have also been issued, consequent to Ex.W2 by imposing a punishment of Rs.200/- upon the 1st respondent for the above violation of the standards of measures. It is difficult to presume that a stranger had been issued with a notice for the shortage of consumer items like kerosene sold by the petitioners co-operative store along with M.W.1, who is admittedly an employee of the society.
9. The Presiding Officer of
