IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

and M.P.No. 1 of 2014

The Management,

M/s.S.E.Muthu Gas Agencies,

Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs.Murugeswari,

No. 6, 4 Main Road,

th

Vijaya Nagar, Velachery,

Chennai - 600 042. ... Petitioner

Vs

1. V.Ramu

2. The Presiding Officer,

II Additional Labour Court,

Chennai. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to order in I.D.No. 260 of 2011 dated 07.03.2014 and to

quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sabdul Wahab For R1 : Mr.R.Gowthaman

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 07.03.2014 of the

II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 260 of 2011. By the said award, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workmen with 50%

of back wages.

2. The parties are referred to as per their array before the Labour Court as Management and Workman.

3. The workman's case is that he was employed under the management for a period of 18 years. While so, when he demanded a reasonable hike in salary from 01.04.2011 onwards, he was refused employment. The management neither followed the provisions under Section 25(F) nor took any disciplinary proceedings in respect of non-employment, and therefore, the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages.

4. The case was resisted by the management. While the employment was admitted, the management's case was that it received a complaint and, upon inspection, found that the cylinders meant for customers were illegally diverted and supplied for commercial interest. When this was discovered and a complaint was lodged at the police station, the workman, during the enquiry at the police station, stated that henceforth he was quitting the job and that he would call it truce, and thereafter he never reported for duty. As a matter of fact, the management filed a counter affidavit stating that even if the workman reports for duty, they are ready and willing to take him back.

5. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties and, after considering the evidence led by both sides, held that the workman had made out a case and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Mr. S Abdul Wahab, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that when the entire episode of diverting the cylinders came to light, the workman voluntarily stopped work. This stand is categorically taken in the counter-affidavit, and even there it was pleaded on behalf of the management that they are ready and willing to employ the workman if he reports for duty. The workman, when he was in the witness- box, was specifically cross-examined as to whether he is willing to join duty if offered employment, and he answered in the negative. It is the case of the workman that, in view of the fact that the management is not willing to reinstate him with full back wages and all attendant benefits, he is not willing to join duty. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even before this Court a categorical stand has been taken that, if the workman reports for duty, they are willing to permit him to join duty.

7. Per contra, Mr. R. Gowthaman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, would submit that the workman refused to join duty because, without granting him the full benefit of reinstatement, including back wages, the management made the offer only to escape liability for back wages as well as the 17B wages. As on date, the arrears of 17B wages alone are running to more than Rs.4,00,000/-, and the total amount due comes to around Rs.12,00,000/-. Even now, the management is not offering reinstatement with full back wages. When non-employment was accepted by the management, the Labour Court was right in passing the award.

8. I hav