W.A.No.3703 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.A.No.3703 of 2019

and

C.M.P.No.23565 of 2019

The Executive Engineer,

Maintenance Division,

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,

Salem-7.

... Appellant

-vs-

1. Baskardoss Prabakaran

2. The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Salem.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated

31.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.29357 of 2014 and allow the Writ Appeal.

For Appellant : Ms.Mekhala

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Govardhanan

*****

J U D G M E N T

Questioning the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29357 of 2014

dated 31.08.2018, confirming the award of the Labour Court dated 15.10.2009 passed in

I.D.No.19 of 2007, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

2. The admitted facts of the case are as follows:

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3703 of 2019

The Workman / 1^st respondent herein joined the services of the appellant Board

on 21.03.1997 and on 30.01.2003, he gave a letter stating that he is resigning from his

post with effect from 01.02.2003. Thereafter, the said letter was withdrawn on

05.06.2003. As the Workman was not allowed to report for work even after withdrawal

of his resignation, he had raised an Industrial Dispute, which was adjudicated by the

Labour Court, Salem, and an award was passed on 15.10.2009, directing the employer

to reinstate the Workman with 50% back wages and with continuity of service. The

award was communicated to the parties on 18.03.2010 and that on receipt of the notice,

since no action was taken, the Workman had to file a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21442 of

2013, seeking enforcement of the award and in the meantime, the Workman attained the

age of superannuation on 31.12.2013.

3. The contention of the employer before this Court in the appeal is that when the

Workman had submitted his resignation voluntarily and that there is no prescribed time

limit under the rules for acceptance, it would take effect immediately and that there is

no need for the employer to wait for a particular period anticipating withdrawal of

resignation submitted by the Workman. Secondly, as the Workman's resignation has

come into effect, the finding of the Labour Court that the Workman had withdrawn his

resignation in June 2003 and that there was a delay of four years. Thus, the Labour

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3703 of 2019

Court's interference with the same and depriving of 50% of the back wages is bad.

Even assuming that there is any erroneous act on the part of the employer, the entire

back wages ought to have been deprived and that the Workman had not evinced any

interest to report for work. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge in confirming

the award of the Labour Court is erroneous, as the finding of the Labour Court is

perverse.

4. Learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent has, in turn, contended that in terms of

the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the appellant Board and Workmen, a

Workman needs to give his intention to resign from the service at least 30 days prior to

the date of coming into force of the said resignation, which would mean that the

employer will have to wait for a period of 30 days and thereafter, pass an order with

immediate effect. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the employer is entitled

to accept the resignation immediately in the absence of the said clause, in the present

case on hand, the employer has not accepted the resignation, for the reason that there

was an order dated 08.02.2003 passed by the employer, stating that unless the Workman

pays a sum of Rs.11,050/-, the resignation submitted by him would not be accepted. It is

stated that there was no response to the reply sent by the Workman that the amount due

from him can b