1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD) No.90 of 2011 Kanyakumari District Government Officers and Public Servants Co-operative Society represented by its Secretary Y-299, N.G.O. Colony, Gandhi Nagar Kottar Post Nagercoil-625 002. .. Appellant versus 1. K.A.Ananthapadmanabhan 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tirunelveli. .. Respondents ----- PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.6683 of 2007 dated 13.08.2010. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in C.P.No.17/2002, on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, the 1st respondent quash the order passed in C.P.17/2002 on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli dated 19.07.2007, and direct the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,52,336.65 being the award amount as per order in I.D.No.202 of 1992 dated 11.8.2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. For appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) This appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13.08.2010 made in W.P.(MD) No.6683 of 2007, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 wherein, this Court set aside the order dated 19.07.2007, thereby directed the appellant herein to pay the amount as per the award dated 11.08.2000 in I.D.No.202 of 1992 on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, to the first respondent/writ petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. It is seen from the averments placed before this Court that under order dated 19.07.2007 in C.P.No.17 of 2002, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal of the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) from service on the ground that the misconduct said to have been committed by him was not fully proved. However, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the substantiated minor offence. Consequently, by award dated 11.08.2000 in I.D.No.202 of 1992 Labour Court, Tirunelveli setting aside the said punishment and held that the first respondent herein was entitled to have all the back-wages paid to him at 50%, he having retired from service on 16.05.2000. Paragraph 20 of the order of the Labour Court very specifically stated that the first respondent herein would be entitled to the back-wages which he would have got, had he retired in the normal course. The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the Management, the appellant herein. The same was confirmed by this Court by order dated 19.04.2001 in W.P.(MD) No.21395 of 2000. It may be noted herein that in W.P.M.P.No.31136 of 2001, under order dated 19.04.2001, this Court made the stay absolute on condition that the appellant herein deposited 25% of the back- wages as awarded by the Labour Court to the credit of the Industrial dispute within twelve weeks from the date of the order, failing which, the interim stay granted would stand vacated automatically. Subsequent thereto, as the appellant did not comply with the order, the first respondent approached the Labour Court for payment of back-wages of a sum of Rs.3,52,335.65. 3. By order dated 19.07.2007 in C.P.No.17 of 2002, the Labour Court directed the appellant herein to pay the back-wages to an extent of Rs.1,17,653/- and rejected the prayer of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent came on a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.6683 of 2007. By order dated 13.08.2010, this Court pointed out that having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21395 of 2000 confirming the order of the Labour Court, the first respondent herein was entitled to the back-wages at 50% by taking into account the normal circumstances under which what the first respondent would have received, had he retired from service. In the circumstances, this Court pointed out to the failure of the appellant herein to comply with the interim order passed in the said writ petition. Thus this Court held that the contention of the appellant that the workmen would be entitled to only 50% of the last drawn wages and not all other attendant benefits is contrary to the very term of back-wages. Referring to the definition "back-wages" from Black Law Dictionary 7th edition, learned single Judge pointed out the technical approach https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of the appellant that the first respondent was entitled to only 50% of the last drawn wages alone and not the other attendant benefits reflected the mala fide attitude of the appellant society in denying the legitimate dues payable to the first respondent. Thus this Court upheld the contention of the first respondent that he was entitled to 50% of teh back-wages with all other attendant benefits including HRA, DA, periodical revision in scale of pay etc., and other retirement benefits such as gratuity, GPF security deposit etc. to the tune of Rs.3,52,335.65 as claimed in C.P.No.17 of 2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. It is not denied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein that the order of the Labour Court had become final. He submitted that considering the fact that the Tribunal had not fixed the entire back-wages to be taken into account while reckoning the 50% of the benefits payable, the order now in appeal directing the payment is against the order contemplated by the Labour Court, particularly in paragraph 20. We do not find any justification to infer such a view, particularly from paragraph 20. 6. It is seen from the order of the Labour Court that while setting aside the allegations against the employee, the Tribunal felt that having regard to the minor character of the charges levelled against the petitioner and that having regard to the fact that the first respondent had already retired from service as early as 16.05.2000, the appellant was bound to pay 50% of the salary and that the same has to be calculated taking into account all the benefits that are attached to the service, which would have been taken note of if the first respondent had retired in due course. Having regard to the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition confirming the award of the Labour Court, rightly, the learned single Judge accepted the plea of the first respondent that the relief of 50% of the backwages payable, with attendant benefits would include all the benefits which the first respondent would be entitled to, had he been in service, to retire under normal circumstances. Hence, this Court rejected the contention of the appellant that the first respondent would be entitled to only 50% of the last drawn wages and that he was not entitled to revision of scale of pay and other benefits. Consequently, this Court held that it was not open to the appellants herein to assail the award made by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. The interpretation now sought to be put forth by the appellant to the award which has attained finality by reason of the order of this Court, hence, does not merit acceptance. We do not find any error in the reasons of the learned single Judge demanding interference by this Court. In the circumstances, agreeing with the view of the learned single Judge, we dismiss this writ appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 7. In the result, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 also stands dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tirunelveli. +One Cc to Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate, Sr.No.2662 ksv rl/3c – 25.2.2011 W.A.(MD) No.90 of 2011 Dated: 24.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/