SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25094

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 2nd 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 For R2 : Court

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 (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;fpz';f jpdf;Typ U:/ 400/- tPjk; 10 khjq;fs; gzpg[hpe;Js;sjhft[k; 01/07/2012 Kjy; 30/04/2013 tiu gzpg[hpe;Jk; mjw;fhd Typ tHq;fgg;ltpy;iy vd;Wk; mJ bjhlh;ghf vjph; kDjhuh; eph;thfk; U/: 120000/- tH';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/- tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W TWtjpy; ve;j cz;ika[k; mogg;ila[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 xgg;[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; tH';fgg;ltpy;iy vd;Wk; Fwpg;gplgg;l;Ls;sJ. kDjhuh; jdf;F vGj;J K:ykhf cj;jut[ tH';fg;gl;ljhf fhl;ltpy;iy. khwhf tha;bkhHpahfj; jhd; brhd;djhf bjhptpj;Js;shh/. kDjhuh; gzp Xa;t[ taij mile;J mtiu Xa;t[ bgw vjph;kDjhuh; mDkjpf;fhj epiyapy; mth;fs; nfl;L bfhz;ljpd; nghpy; bjhlh;e;J m';nfna jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; gzpahw;wpajhf TWtJ tpag;g[ mspg;gjhfnt cs;sJ/ mJ kl;Lky;yhJ kDjhuh;

jd;Dila bghWgg;[fis jpU.fy;ahzRe;juk; vd;gthplk; xgg;ilj;jjhf TWgth; mtiu jkJ jugg;py; k/rh/2 Mf tprhhpj;Js;shh/; k/r/.2 jdJ rhl;rpaj;jpy; kDjhuh; bghWg;g[fis xgg;ilj;j gpwF jq;fSila epWtdj;jpy; 10 khj';fs; gzpahw;wpdhh; vd;gJ bjhpahJ vd;Wk; mth; epYitapy; itj;jpUe;J gzpfis bra;J bfhLj;jhh; vd;Wk; vt;tst[ ehl;fs; mt;thW gzp bra;jhh; vd;W bjhpahJ vd;Wk; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ nehf;fj;jf;fjhf cs;sJ/ kDjhuhplk; ,Ue;j bghWgg;[fis bgw;Wf; bfhz;l k/rh/2 kDjhuh; bjhlh;e;J gzpahw;wpaJ gw;wp bjhpahJ vd;gjhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ Kf;fpaj;Jtk; tha;e;jjhf cs;sJ/ mJ klL; ky;yhJ kDjhuh; 01/07/2012 Kjy; 30/04/2013 tiu bjhlh;e;J vjph; kDjhuh; epWtdj;jpy; gzpahw;wp te;jhh; vd;W fhl;Ltjw;Fk; vj;jifa rhl;rpaq;fSk; Kd;dpiygg;Lj;jgg;ltpy;iy. Vdnt kDjhuh; gzp Xa;t[f;F gpwF vjph; kDjhuhplk; 10 khjq;fs; gzpahw;wpdhh; vd;gJk; epU:gpf;fgg;lhj epiyapy; kDjhuh; U/: 120000/- nfl;L Kd; itj;Js;s nfhhpf;ifapy; mogg;il ,y;iy vd;nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ.

Aggrieved thereby, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top