1. The intra-court appeal in W.A.No. 301 of 2014 is at the instance of the Management and the challenge is to the order dated 28 September 2012 in W.P.No. 8544 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to each of the workmen in the place of the direction issued by the Labour Court for reinstatement with backwages.
2. The writ appeal in W.A.No. 523 of 2013 is the instance of the workmen and the challenge is to the very same order dated 28 September 2012 in W.A.No. 8544 of 2008 upsetting the award passed by the Labour Court directing re-instatement with backwages.
Brief facts:
3. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 523 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "workmen") were employed by the appellant in W.A.No. 301 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Management") in its Granite Industry at Mettur, near Salem. The workmen raised an Industrial Dispute alleging that they were terminated from service on 30 April 2003. The conciliation ended in failure. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in I.D.Nos. 348 of 2003 and 361 to 364 of 2003. Before the Labour Court, the workmen contended that they were appointed on permanent basis on various dates between 1999 and 2000. The management on the other hand contended that they were not permanent workmen. The management denied the contention regarding illegal termination. The Labour Court passed an award dated 11 October 2007 directing reinstatement of the workmen with backwages.
4. The common award dated 11 October 2007 was challenged by the Management before the writ court in W.P.No. 8544 of 2008. The learned Single Judge taking into account the non-compliance of interim order granted by the Writ Court dated 8 January 2010 directing payment of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, directed the management to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to each of the workmen. The Writ Court modified the award by directing the management to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to each of the workmen instead of reinstatement. In short, the management was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to each of the workmen. It is the said order which is challenged before us by the workmen and the management.
5. We have heard Thiru V. Karthic, learned counsel for the management and Thiru S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the workmen.
The Limitation Question:
6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was correct in upsetting the award by substituting the direction for reinstatement of workmen by lumpsum payment.
Discussion:
7. The workmen made a claim before the Conciliation Officer and later before the Labour Court that they have been working on a permanent basis and that they were terminated from service on 30 April 2003. It is a matter of record that only the respondents 2 to 5 entered the witness box and deposed that they were terminated by the management in an high handed manner. The management took up a contention both before the Conciliation Officer as well as before the Labour Court that they have not terminated the services of the workmen and agreed to provide them work. The management produced Exs. R.8 and R.9 to show that the workmen by name R. Kumar was employed as Overhead Tank Attender in Kallipatti Panchayat. The Labour Court rejected those documents on the ground that the author of the documents was not examined. The documents marked on the side of the management in Exs.R.1 and R.3 with regard to the settlement of the claim of workman by name P. Saravanan was not accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that those documents were not produced before the Conciliation Officer. The management also made an attempt to prove that the workman by name K. Selvaraj has taken up a false plea of termination on 30 April 2003 not withstanding the fact that he was hospitalised between 29 April 2003 and 12 May 2003.
8. The learned Single Judge considered the nature of employment and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, both oral and documentary, and arrived at a finding that relief of re-instatement cannot automatically be granted and compensation is the remedy in such cases. The learned Single Judge found that the management failed to comply with the order passed by the Labour Court dated 8 January 2010 for payment of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal filed by the management against the said order appears to have been dismissed by the Division Bench. Violation of the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act made the learned Single Judge to direct the management to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to each of the workmen towards wages for the interregnum. The learned Single Judge followed the judgments of the Supreme Court, more particularly,
9. The learned counsel for the Management has produced documents to show that the financing Bank took action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on account of the default committed by the unit and as such the Granite establishment is not running at present.
10. We have considered the award passed by the Labour Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the documents available on record. We fully endorse the views expressed by the learned Single Judge that it is not a fit case to direct re-instatement with backwages. We are, therefore, of the view that no interference is necessary in the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. In the result, the intra court appeals are dismissed. The management is directed to make payment in accordance with the order passed by the Writ Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.
