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

2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice S. VAIDYANATHAN
THE MANAGEMENT OF ABT PARCEL – Appellant
Versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on

31.07.2021 16.09.2021 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S .VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.16665 of 2004 The Management of ABT parcel service, 101 Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

represented by its General Manager-Personnel. .... Petitioner vs.

1. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

2. P.Raju .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.553 of

1994 dated 23.12.2003 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Ms.Swathika For Mr.Haroon For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For R1 : Court For R2 : Mr.K.Elango (R2)

*****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Award of the 1st Respondent dated

23.12.2003, passed in I.D.No.553 of 1994, by which, the Employee / 2nd Respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, with 50% of back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2. This Court, after hearing the submissions on either side in extenso, has reserved the case for judgment on 31.07.2021 and after conclusion of their arguments on the said date, learned counsel for the parties also stated that settlement talks are going on between the Management and the Workman.

3. Now, learned counsel on either side has produced a Joint Memo dated 15.09.2021 on behalf of parties, stating the Parties have arrived at a Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and recording the said Settlement, the Writ Petition may be disposed of. The terms of the 18(1) Settlement are extracted hereunder:

“MEMORANDAM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 Parties to the Settlement : The Management of - ABT Parcel Service Coimbatore AND P.Raju Representing Employer : Saravanabavanandan S.A, S/o.Mr.R.A.Angannan Chief Human Resources Officer, ABT Parcel Service, 180, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018 Representing Workman : P.Raju

44, Ranganathan Maistry Lane, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

Number and broad description : 1 Workman (one workman only)

of workman covered by the settlement Short Recital Workman P.Raju was proceeded with by way of Disciplinary Action for certain acts of misconduct which was proved in the enquiry held for the purpose. On 28.12.1993 he was dismissed. He raised ID No 553 of 1994 in Labour Court, Chennai claiming relief of reinstatement. By its award dated 23.12.2003, the Labour Court, set aside the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. On 18.08.2004, the Workman was reinstated. On 11.10.2018, he reached the age of superannuation. The Management challenged the award of the Labour Court in so far as it relates to back wages. The Writ Petition was admitted on 18.06.2004. Subsequently, the workmen worked till the date of his superannuation. As regards the relief of back wages, both parties felt that consensus could be arrived as so as to put an end to the litigation. The Management agreed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.60,000/- And the workman also agreed to receive the said amount towards the relief of back wages. On the aforesaid understanding, the settlement was arrived at on the following terms :

1. Workman Thiru P.Raju was reinstated pursuant to the award of the Labour Court dated

23.12.2003 in ID No 553 of 1994 and after reinstatement, he served till the age of superannuation and also received all his terminal benefits.

2. Regarding the relief of back wages which was also challenged in the Writ Petition, it is agreed between the parties that an adhoc amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be paid to the workman in full and final settlement of all his claims against the Management.

3. The Petitioner is not pressing for any relief in terms of the award dated 23.12.2003 in ID No 553 of 1994.

4. It is further agreed by both the parties that a copy of this Settlement would be filed before the Hon’ble High Court in W.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top