IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

1.Jagadeesh (Deceased)

2.J.Narmadha 3.M.J.Swathi

(P2 to P4 are substituted as Lr’s of

deceased P1, as per order dated 04.04.2024

in W.M.P.No.8752 of 2024

in W.P.No.27016 of 2019 by DNRJ) ...Petitioners

Vs

The Management

T.D.I. International India Private Ltd.,

No.42, Rani Jansi Road,

New Delhi – 110 055. ...Respondent

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue directions, orders, writs in particular a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the award pronounced in I.D.No.31 of 2008 dated 02.08.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back

wages, continuity of service with all other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner(s) : M/s.T.Ramkumar

For Respondent(s): No appearance

ORDER

The original Writ Petitioner / Workman involved in this case, namely M.

Jagadeesh, died on 29.01.2022, and his LR's are brought on record as the current petitioners herein. The deceased Jagadeesh will be referred to as the workman, and the respondents will be referred to as the Management in this judgment.

2. The workman raised a dispute before the conciliation officer, aggrieved by his non-employment. On 29.10.2007, the conciliation officer submitted a failure report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a claim petition in I.D.No.31 of

2008 under Section 2 A(2) of the erstwhile Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The case of the workman is that he joined the service of the respondent / Management with effect from 12.10.1994 as an Electrician and thereafter was further promoted as Trolly Supervisor. Even though it is called a Supervisor, it does not involve any supervisory function, and the petitioner was a workman. In this context, the salary granted to the petitioner was very low, and he has been making representations dated 13.12.2002, 24.01.2003, 18.03.2003 and 23.03.2003 to the Management for increasing the salary. Enraged by the same, without any enquiry or show-cause notice whatsoever, the petitioner was suddenly stopped from work with effect from 13.03.2006.

Therefore, the claim petition is filed to set aside the non-employment and to reinstate him with all continuity of service and backwages.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the Management. The employment from the period 01.04.1997 till 10.03.2006 was admitted by the Management. It is stated that since the job was coterminous with the contract that the Management had with the Airport Authority of India and since the said contract stood terminated in the year 2004, the relationship between the workman and Management ceased to exist. Under the said circumstances, on 13.02.2006, the workman submitted a resignation for better prospects. The workman thereafter also submitted forms for receiving his Employees Provident Fund dues and he has also received the same. Belatedly by way of an abuse of process of law, this claim petition is filed.

5. The Management also filed an additional counter-statement, detailing the transactions with the Provident Fund Authorities, the forms submitted by the workman, and the handwritten letter submitted to the workman to the Provident Fund Authorities. The workman also filed a rejoinder. He stated that he never submitted any resignation and that even the Airport entry pass was surrendered only for renewal, as per his letter dated 13.02.2006, and therefore the Management was trying to build a false case.

6.Before the Labour Court, the workman was examined as W.W.1, and Ex.W1 to Ex.W18 were marked. On behalf of the Management, one N.Vinod Kumar was examined as M.W.1, and Ex.M1 to Ex.M5 were marked. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties. It framed the first question as to whether the workman was terminated or had himself resigned from the job. After considering the exhibits filed on behalf of the Management, it answered