IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

1. D.Sivagnanam No.76, I Cross Extension, Bharathi Nagar,Karuvadikuppam, Lawspet,Puducherry.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The General Manager M/s.Puducherry Road Transport Corporation (PRTC), Ayyanar Koil street, Raja Nagar,Puducherry.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Award dt. 26.2.2020 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,Puducherry in I.D. (L) No.37/ 2017 and quash the same in so far as it denied back wages and monetary benefits to the petitioner while grating the relief of reinstatement and direct the respondent management to reinstate the petitioner with alternative work, back- wages and all other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner(s): C.K.Chandrasekkar K.Elumalai For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sreedhar, AGP

ORDER

(1)The writ petition is filed by the employee challenging the Award of the Labour Court in ID.No.37/2017 dated 26.02.2020, insofar it relates to the denial of back wages alone.

(2)The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, are as follows:

(3)The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the respondent/Corporation, initially on temporary basis and thereafter, was made permanent. While so, on 04.03.2006, while the petitioner was on duty, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries including fracture in the spinal cord in L4 and L5. The petitioner was granted 72 days disability leave from 05.03.2006 to 15.05.2006. Subsequently, the respondent/Corporation also provided the petitioner with alternate employment as Cashier from 16.05.2006 and then as Clerk upto 18.08.2010. The said postings were given to the petitioner in consideration of the grievous injuries sustained by him and his disability to continue as Conductor. On 18.08.2010, the respondent/Corporation relieved the petitioner from the Clerk post and directed him to work as regular Conductor. Though the petitioner requested the respondent/Corporation to give him alternate work, the respondent/Corporation instead of considering the petitioner's request, issued him a charge memo on 01.06.2012 and thereafter dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the illegal termination, the petitioner raised a dispute in ID.No.37/2017 before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, vide impugned Award dated 26.02.2020, partly allowed the Claim Petition, by directing the respondent/Corporation to reinstate the petitioner, but without full backwages and other monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court insofar as full backwages and monetary benefits were denied, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(4)The respondent/Corporation did not contest the dispute and therefore, an ex-parte Award was passed by the Labour Court. The respondent/Corporation, has however, filed a counter in the writ petition. The respondent/Corporation contended that the petitioner was not entitled for back wages since the petitioner had neither pleaded nor provided any material evidence regarding the employment status. The respondent/Corporation submitted that the writ petition lacked bona fide since the petitioner did not make any effort to join the respondent/Corporation despite his reinstatement. The respondent/Corporation submitted that the petitioner's removal was due to his prolonged, unauthorised absence reflecting his lack of interest in continuing the services with the respondent/Corporation. The respondent/

Corporation therefore prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

(5)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, having found the termination of the petitioner to be illegal, ought not to have denied the full backwages to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court failed to note that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries includin