BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)Nos.3340 & 6601 of 2021 and WMP(MD) Nos.2688 & 5111 of 2021 W.P(MD)No.3340 of 2021:-

Vaithiyanathan. V ... Petitioner Vs The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam. ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the Labour Court, Kumbakonam, relating to the impugned award dated, 06.03.2020 in I.D.No.118 of 2018, quash the same insofar as denying continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner and consequently to direct the respondent to pay the same to him, along with terminal and pension benefits for his entire service period from 18.02.1994 to 31.05.2019 award cost.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan The Administration, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Division Ltd., Kumbakonam. ... Petitioner Vs V.Vaidyanathan ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Award passed in I.D.No. 118 of 2018, dated 06.03.2020, on the file of Labour Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunachalam

C O M M O N O R D E R

The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3340 of 2021 was appointed as a Conductor in the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Kumbakonam on 18.02.1994. On 27.12.2003, he was issued with a charge memo that he has failed to issue ticket to one of the passengers in a group of three and thereby, he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.42/- and he has refused to sign the documents. After conducting an enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 03.06.2004. The Transport Corporation has filed an application, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, for approval of the order of dismissal of the workman. The Authority has refused to approve the order of dismissal passed by the Transport Corporation, vide his order, dated 16.02.2006 in A.P.No.156 of 2004. Aggrieved over the same, the Management has preferred a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No. 3296 of 2007 and the same was allowed by this Court, by order, dated 03.01.2012 and the order of dismissal has been confirmed by this Court. Thereafter, the workman has raised the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Cuddalore, under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said Industrial Dispute was entertained and transferred to the Labour Court, Kumbakonam and decided in ID No. 118 of 2018, on 06.03.2020. While deciding the Industrial Dispute, the Labour Court has taken into consideration of the fact that the workman has attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009 and directed the Management to pay the terminal benefits due to him, however, without any back wages and other benefits. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, in I.D.No.118 of 2018, dated 06.03.2020, the workman has preferred a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD) No.3401 of 2021 and the Management has preferred a writ petition in WP (MD) No.6601 of

2021.

2.Since both these writ petitions are arising out of the award passed by the Labour Court, Kumbakonam in I.D.No.118 of 2018, dated 06.03.2020, both these writ petitions are taken up together and disposed by this common order.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the workman submits that the Labour Court, while passing an award in ID No.118 of 2018, dated 06.03.2020, directed the Management to pay the terminal benefits to the Workman, however, there is no clarity as to whether he is entitled for other terminal bene