1/15

W.A.No.1511/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :: 20-02-2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.A.No.1511 of 2022

The Managing Director,

Essem Technologies Private Limited....

Appellant

-vs-

1.The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court,

Puducherry.

2.Mrs.R.Varalakshmi

...

Respondents

Appeal is filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

order, dated 28.02.2022, passed in W.P.No.16121 of 2013, on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mrs.S.Harinyi

For Respondent 2 : Mr.Balan Haridas

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

2/15

W.A.No.1511/2022

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant management, challenging

the order of the learned single Judge, dated 28.02.2022, passed in W.P.No.16121 of

2013, setting aside the non-awarding of back-wages from 01.02.2006 till the date of

reinstatement i.e., 19.03.2013. The learned single Judge has, however, deprived back-

wages from 11.08.2005 to 31.01.2006, on the ground of unauthorised absence.

2. The facts of the case are that the second respondent-woman employee,

who joined the service of the appellant management, was deprived employment with

effect from 01.02.2006, which was questioned by her in conciliation, and the failure of

which resulted in an award by the Labour Court, Puducherry, in I.D.No.4 of 2008,

dated 17.01.2013. The fact that the employee was on maternity leave from 11.08.2005

till 31.01.2006 is not in dispute. The employer contended that they were not aware of

the employee going on maternity leave, as there was no information about the leave, and,

even thereafter, from 01.02.2006, the employee did not report for work. According to

them, they offered employment to the respondent employee before the Conciliation

Officer, stating that there was no termination; the employee was not reporting for work

and that she was unauthorisedly absent and abandoned the services. The recordings of

the Conciliation Officer during conciliation on 14.03.2007, 30.03.2007 and 09.05.2007

are extracted below :

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

3/15

W.A.No.1511/2022

''Enquiry on 14.03.07 at 12.00 noon

Management was represented by Thiru A.Venkataraman,

Asst.Manager Accounts and Petitioner Varalakshmi were present.

Similarly Management informed LO (C) to rein-instate the petitioner

without backwages provided the petitioner has to give undertaking for

regular attendance petitioner requested Management for life settlement

or record LO (C) for failure. Adjourned to 30.03.07 at 11.00 a.m.

Enquiry on 30.03.07 at 12.00 noon

Petitioner Tmt.Varalakhmi was present.

Management was represented by Thiru D.Gnanasegaran,

Executive Accounts, without authorisation, he was informed the next

meeting.

Petitioner submitted the same plea i.e., Reinstatement with

backwages or life settlement or failure.

Adjourned to 19.04.07 at 11.00 AM

Enquiry on 09.05.07 at 11.00 AM

Management was represented by Thiru A.Venkataraman,

Asst.Manager (Accounts)

Petitioner Tmt.Varalakshmi was present.

Management informed LO (C) that they are ready to reinstatement

without backwages provided the petitioner has to give undertaking for

regular attendance. Since Management not terminated or dismissed the

Petitioner.

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

4/15

W.A.No.1511/2022

Petitioner requested reinstatement with back wages or life

settlement or failure.

Since both parties stood on their own stand, no amicable

settlement could be arrived. Therefore, this I.D. ended in failure.''

The employer categorically stated that the management was willing to provide

employment and that the employee could report for work. However, without joining the

work, contending that under the guise of reinstatement offer the employer was not

providing job, the employee filed a claim statement before the Labour Court and

Additional District Judge,