SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The Management of M/s. Vee Jay Tool and Die Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director – Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Ors. – Respondents 
W.P.Nos.7467 and 7448 of 2011 and 27447 of 2012 And M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012
Decided On : 03-02-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. W. Aadarsh Levin for M/s. T.S. Gopalan and Co., Mr. K.M. Ramesh Senior Counsel for M/s. V. Subramani.

Reinstatement with back wages is not automatic; compensation may be more appropriate in cases of significant delay since termination.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(3) - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 - Employment status of casual labourers - The court addressed the cessation of apprenticeship and the entitlement of employees to reinstatement or compensation after 15 years. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages, which the Management contested. The court found that reinstatement was not appropriate after such a long period and opted for monetary compensation instead. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may not be suitable in all cases, particularly when significant time has elapsed since termination. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The Management engaged casual labourers for fluctuating orders and entered into a settlement with the Employees for apprenticeship. Upon completion, the Employees were not retained, leading to disputes. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement and backwages, which the Management challenged.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that monetary compensation of Rs.1,00,000 each to the Employees was appropriate, given the long duration since their termination.

Issues: The main issues included the employment status of the Employees and the appropriateness of reinstatement versus compensation after a significant lapse of time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and compensation may be more suitable in certain circumstances, particularly after a long delay.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with an order for compensation.

ORDER :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

The writ petitions have been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari seeking to quash the order dated 08.01.2010 in ID Nos.223 to 229 of 2004, 427 of 2003 and 427 of 2003 respectively.

2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

For brevity, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.7467 and 7448 of 2011 and the second respondent in W.P.No.27447 of 2012 would be hereinafter referred to as 'Management'. The respondents 2 to 8 in W.P.No.7467 of 2011, the second respondent in W.P.No.7448 of 2011 and the petitioner in W.P.No.27447 of 2012 would be hereinafter referred to as 'Employees'.

3.The case of the Management is that the Management is engaged in the manufacture of plastic injection moulding, engineering component and undertakes job work for twisting yarns. Since its order position used to fluctuate depending on the market conditions, the petitioner used to engage casual labour. As the casual labourers are covered under the provisions of EPF & Miscellaneous Provision Act and ESI Act, even if they had worked for a day, the Management used to ensure compliance of the said enactment to the said casual labourer. The workmen of the Management are members of Kovai Mavatta Podhu Thozhilalar Munnettra Sangam (LPF) which was recognized by the petitioner.

4.The further case of the Management is that the Employees are the members of LPF and the said union after issuing charter of demands in the year 2000, entered into a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the ID Act on 04.08.2000. Clause 7 of the settlement provided that the Employees would be engaged as an apprentice for a period of three years and their emoluments were also fixed. The Employees while engaged as apprentice were provided with identity card and during the period of training the Employees were given extensive training in all the departments of the Management. On completion of apprenticeship training, they returned the card. When the period of apprenticeship training came to an end, there was no need for additional manpower in the Management and therefore they were not given further training or probationary employment in the Management.

5.The further case of the Management is that the Employees challenged their cessation of apprenticeship by raising industrial disputes before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, in I.D.No.227 of 2004 directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the second petitioner therein/ legal representative of the deceased first petitioner therein who is one of the Employee; and in other I.Ds., directed the Management to reinstate the Employees in service with continuity of service and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each as backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the Management has filed

6.Since full backwages was not granted and other attendant and consequential benefits is vitiated, one of the Employees/ petitioner in ID No.427 of 2003 has filed W.P.No.27447 of 2012.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the Management submitted that the Employees are not permanent employees and they were engaged as casual labourers. The learned counsel further submitted that even during the training period they were not treated as permanent employees and they were treated as casual labourers, however, they raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court alleging that they have worked as regular workers for more than 240 days in a calender year, however, they were terminated and the Labour Court instead of dismissing the said industrial disputes, ordered for reinstatement, which is not sustainable one.

8.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the Employees/ petitioner in W.P.No.27447 of 2012 [ID No.427 of 2003] submitted that the Employee worked in the Management for more than ten years. Even as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981, if a person is in continuous service for 480 days in two Calender years,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top