The court established that interim relief and concessional values must be included in wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing strict compliance with wage payment mandates.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. RAMESH, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order of this Court dated 31.10.2023 passed in W.P. No. 20445 of 2023.

1.1. On the strength of the proven charges of misconduct, the appellant/workman was dismissed from service on 30.09.2016 by the respondent/Management. Together with the order of dismissal, the workman was paid one month wages amounting to Rs. 18,051.70/- and had also filed an application in A.P. No. 84 of 2016 on the same day before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, as mandated under the Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

1.2. Before the Tribunal, the workman had filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking for dismissal of the approval application, in I.A. No. 20 of 2019 for non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of payment of one month wages under the Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. According to the workman, his one month wages would amount to Rs. 26,145/- which also includes an interim relief amount of Rs. 4,000/- ordered to be paid, as per the order passed by this Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, together with an amount of Rs. 203/- which is the concessional value of health drinks coupons and coconut oil.

1.3. The Tribunal, through its order dated 03.12.2021, had found that the Management had not paid the workman the full wages for one month and therefore, since has not complied with the requirements under the Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, rejected the application in A.P. No. 84 of 2016.

1.4. When the Management had challenged the order of the Tribunal before the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 20445 of 2023, the Writ Petition came to be allowed on 31.10.2023, by holding that the Tribunal had erred on the following counts:

“(a) Inordinate delay of more than five years in deciding on the approval petition.

(b) Misinterpreting the components of the monthly wages paid to the respondent without understanding the amount payable was contingent or not.

(c) Not clarifying whether Rs. 4,000/- as interim allowance was paid for September 2016 or not.

(d) Concluding on the one month wages based on earlier months’ pay slips.

(e) Not adverting its attention to the validity of the domestic enquiry.”

2. The aforesaid order of the learned single Judge is assailed in this intra-court appeal.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that the learned single Judge had traversed beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and had interfered with the order of the Tribunal like an Appellate Authority. According to the learned senior counsel, though the workman had claimed for inclusion of several allowances, he restricted the claim to include a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month towards wages, which is an interim relief ordered by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 08 of 2014, dated 12.08.2015, which order was confirmed till the Hon’ble Supreme Court, together with a sum of Rs. 203/- which is the concessional value of health drinks coupons and coconut oil, which amounts were regularly paid to the workman, prior to his dismissal. With such submissions, he submitted that the payment of partial wages is opposed to the mandate under the Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, as well as several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Management put forth his submissions in two folds. Firstly, he would submit that since the defacto relationship between the workman and the Management had ended from the date of his dismissal, he would not be entitled for the payment of the interim relief of Rs. 4,000/- since he would not be performing his duties after the order of dismissal. Secondly, he raised a similar objection stating that since the workman will not be undertaking any physical duty after the date of his dismissal, he would not be entitled to see