IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.03.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN WA No.701 of 2025 M/s. ART FM AUTO TECH INDIA PVT LTD Rep by Authorized Signatory Having its Office at No.4, Noombal Road Velappanchavadi Chennnai-600 077 : Appellant versus R.Karthikeyan : Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed to set aside the order dated 30.11.2023, in W.P.No.26121 of 2019, upholding the order dated 22.01.2019, passed in ID No.782/2015, on the file of Third Additional Labour Court, Chennai and consequently, quash the claim petition proceedings vide CP No.81/2019 pending on the file of the Third Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel, for Mr.C.Suraj For Respondent : Mr.S.Kumarasamy JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Challenge in the writ petition was to the award directing reinstatement of the employee/respondent with 50% of the back wages. It was the claim of the employee/respondent that he was orally terminated. The said claim was resisted by the management/appellant contending that there was no oral termination and the management is always ready and willing to employ the workman/respondent and it is the workman who had refused to join work. The Labour Court, however, found in favour of the employee and directed his reinstatement with back wages.

2. We have heard Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the management and Mr.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the workman.

3. Pending writ petition, there was an order for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was not complied with and such non-compliance led to the employee filing a claim petition in C.P.No.81 of 2019 before the Labour Court, Chennai and in the said proceedings, the management/employer had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of the C.P. It is stated that the said amount has been invested, and it has earned interest.

4. The question is one of non-employment. The alleged oral termination was in the year 2015. It is almost ten years now. The employer would consistently claim that it had not terminated the employee, and it was the employee who desisted from reporting to duty, on his own. No doubt, the claim of the management has not found favour with the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge. However, this is a case where the management has lost confidence in the worker and a conducive working atmosphere cannot be created after a period of 10 years. If the employee is still reinstated, it may lead to friction amongst the parties and the employee will also be forced to face subsequent litigation which will not be in his own interest. We are therefore of the considered opinion that it will be in the interest of both the parties, to direct payment of monetary compensation, so that both are relieved of any future litigation.

5. In such view of the matter, we fix the monetary compensation at Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only). Out of this Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- has already been deposited to the credit of C.P., which is stated to be pending before the Labour Court. The employee is permitted to withdraw the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, with interest if any. The employer will pay the remaining sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

6. Such payment will be in full satisfaction of the award and the employee will not claim any benefit under the award, upon such payment.

7. The writ appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.5958 of 2025 is closed.

(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)

11.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar To The Third Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(tar)

WA No.701 of 2025

11.03.2025