W.P. (MD) No. 6204 of 2015

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.07.2021

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P. (MD) No. 6204 of 2015

B.Gopalakrishnan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Joint Registrar/Special Officer,

Madurai District Pandiyan Consumer

Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.,

61, Kelaveli Veethi,

Madurai-1.

2.The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court,

Madurai.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in

C.P.No.53 of 2013 dated 21.07.2014 and quash the same in respect of

rejection of claim of Rs.400/- per day of daily wage from 01.07.2012

to 30.04.2013 and consequently direct the respondent management to

pay Rs.1,20,000/- as daily wage from 01.07.2012 to 30.04.2013 within

stipulated time.

For Petitioner

: Mr. T.A.Ebenezer

For R1

: Mr. R.Velmurugan

O R D E R

(through video conference)

Heard Mr. T.A.Ebenezer, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr. R.Velmurugan, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent

and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the

pleadings of the parties.

2.

The Petitioner, who was working as a Salesman in the Co-

operative Society of the First Respondent, had retired from service

on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012. According to

the Petitioner, even after attaining the age of superannuation, he

had continued to work as daily wage worker at the rate of Rs.400/-

per day. It is also the case of the Petitioner that terminal

benefits had not been settled till 30.04.2013. In that backdrop, the

Petitioner had filed a claim petition in C.P. No. 53 of 2013 under

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short) before the Labour Court, Madurai

1/9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P. (MD) No. 6204 of 2015

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court' for short) claiming

the dues for such employment. In the proceedings before the Labour

Court, it was accepted that the terminal benefits had not been

settled till 30.04.2013, but it was denied that the services of the

Petitioner had been engaged on daily wages for the period from

01.07.2012 to 30.04.2013 as claimed by him. The Labour Court in the

order dated 21.07.2014 came to the conclusion that the encashment of

earned leave of Rs. 1,13,256/- due to the Petitioner remained due

and directed it to be paid to the Petitioner along with refund of

secured deposit of Rs. 4,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-. However, the

claim made by the Petitioner for wages due for the period from

01.07.2012 to 30.04.2013 was rejected by stating as follows:-

“10. kDjhuh; gzp Xa;t [ bgw;w gpwF vjph; kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jpy; mjpfhhpapd;

ntz;LnfhSf;fpzq;f jpdf;Typ U:. 400/- tPjk; 10 khjq;fs ; gzp

g[hpe;Js ;sjhft[k ; 01/07/2012 Kjy; 30.04.2013 tiu gzpg[hpe;Jk ; mjw;fhd

Typ tHq;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk ; mJ bjhlh;ghf vjph; kDjhuh; eph;thfk; U:.

120000/- tHq;f ntz;o cs;sJ vd;Wk ; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; tHf;F

Kd;itf;fg;gl ;Ls ;sJ. gzp Xa;t [f ;F gpwF vjph; kDjhuh; epWtdj;jpy;

gzpahw;wnt ,y;iy vd;Wk ; 01/07/2012 Kjy; 03.04.2013 tiu jpdf;Typ U:.

400/- tPjk; kDjhuUf;F U:. 120000/- tHq;f ntz;Lk ; vd;W TWtjpy; ve;j

cz;ika[k ; mog;gila[k ; ,y;iy vd;Wk ; vdnt rk;gs ghf;fp vJt[k ; ,y;iy

vd;gjhy; ,e;j nfhhpf;if epiy epw;fjf;fjy;y vd;Wk ; vjph; thjk; bra;ag ;gl ;lJ.

vjph; kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jpy; gzp Xa;t [ bgw;w gzpahsh;fs ; jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy;

ntiyf;F vLj;Jf ;bfhs;sg ;gl ;Ls ;sdh; vd;gij v.rh.1 xg;g [f ;bfhz;Ls ;shh;.

Mdhy; nkypl mDkjpapd; nghpy; vGj;J K:ykhd cj;jutpd; mog;gilapy; gzp

Xa;t [ bgw;wth;fs ; kPz;Lk ; gzpapy; mkh;j ;jg ;gLthh;fs ; vd;Wk ; kDjhuUf;F

vGj;J K:ykhd cj;jut[ vJt[k ; tHq;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk ; Fwpg;gplg;gl ;Ls ;sJ.

kDjhuh; jdf;