In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 16.04.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition No.1970 of 2007 & M.P.No.3 of 2007 The Management of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep. By The Superintending Engineer (P&C) 802, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 .... Petitioner Vs. 1. P.Thanigalvelan 2. The Presiding Officer II, Labour Court, Chennai – 600 018. .... Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent Labour Court relating to its award dated 6.6.2005 passed in I.D.No.378 of 1997 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Ramesh - R1 ----------- O R D E R The petitioner, which is the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, are challenging the Award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.378 of 1997 dated 6.6.2005 have filed the present writ petition. By the said Award, the first respondent was directed to be reinstated with full backwages. 2. The writ petition was admitted and a conditional order of stay was granted on 20.1.2007. By the said order, this Court directed deposit of 50% of the backwages within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Subsequently, on 23.10.2007, this Court recorded that the said condition has been complied with. When the first respondent tried to withdraw the amount, the same was not permitted and the main writ petition was directed to be taken up. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Electricity Board and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. It is seen from the records that the first respondent was appointed as an Helper and subsequently on 15.9.1992, he was promoted as a Junior Assistant. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted and placed under suspension on 25.11.1993 and pursuant to an enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 3.9.1994. His appeal and mercy petitions having been rejected, he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Government Labour Officer, which was finally taken up on file by the second respondent Labour Court as I.D.No.378 of 1997. 5. The Labour Court after an analysis of the evidence let in before it, both oral and documentary, and found that the production of false service certificate by the petitioner may be improper but in so far as the said certificate was not a basic requirement for his employment and the other basic documents produced by him were genuine it directed reinstatement with backwages by it Award as noted already. 6. The petitioner Electricity Board contended that it is the case of dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board and therefore, he cannot be shown any sympathy. However, it transpires that several other employees of the Board, who were similarly placed, filed writ petitions challenging their termination on the ground of producing false service certificates. In one such case a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition and a writ appeal was filed being W.A.No.2832 of 2001 (A.Manoharan V. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others). 7. In the said writ appeal, the Division Bench presided by P.Sathasivam, J (as he then was) allowed the writ appeal. In that writ appeal, it was held that at the time of entry into the service, all certificates could have been verified by the Board and they should not have delayed the matter by which time the workmen themselves have got further promotions. It was also stated that the experience certificate was not a basic requirement at the time of entry into the original post. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court directed reinstatement of the workmen. However, it was stated that for the period in which they were out of employment, no wages will be paid, but service continuity was assured. 8. In the light of the Division Bench of this Court, which is based on an identical situation, there is no other option except to confirm the Award passed by the Labour Court. Since the Division Bench by a speaking order disallowed backwages, that portion of the Award of the Labour Court directing backwages to be paid must also necessarily should be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In view of the same, the writ petition is partially allowed. The operative portion of the award of the Labour Court found in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 stands modified to the extent that the first respondent is directed to be reinstated without backwages, but with continuity of service. Since the Labour Court has granted reinstatement by its Award dated 6.6.2005 and the award is now been upheld, the restoration of the first respondent into service shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. A right of the workman for getting reinstated accrued by the Award dated 6.6.2005, he is also eligible for wages from the date of the Award. The wages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of award alone will be deprived. Mr.Vaidyanathan, learned standing counsel for the Board contended that pursuant to a request made by the first respondent that he will forego backwages, the Board was willing to consider his case without backwages. Therefore, if this Court orders reinstatement, it should be done without any backwages till he is reinstated and took exception to the grant of wages from the date of the Award and pleaded denial of full wages. 11. It must be stated that this Court is not recording any compromise between parties. Even at the beginning, parties wanted an order of the Court. Further, in the present case that portion of the Award is being confirmed and therefore natural consequences must follow. If persons who came to this Court directly and got relief from the date of the Writ Appeal, there is no reason why a person who went to Labour Court should be denied relief from the date of the Award by which the first respondent was directed to be reinstated. For the sole reason going to an alternative forum he cannot be punished. Further in the present case, an Award if confirmed by virtue of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act will be enforceable after 30 days after its publication in the manner known to law. This Court cannot deprive a statutory liability cast on the enforceability of the Award. In the present case, the Award is dated 6.6.2005. But the writ petition was filed after 1 1/2 years delay and no explanation is found in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. As per Section 13 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman was eligible to get the last drawn wages which was not done in this case. Under the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that this Court on an unjust foundation to deny wages to the workman from the date of the Award till he is actually reinstated. 12. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The portion relating to grant of backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of Award i.e., 6.6.2005 is set aside. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first respondent will be reinstated and paid the wages from the date of the Award i.e. 6.6.2005 till the date of reinstatement within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. The entire period of non-employment will be considered as continuous service for all practical purposes. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.3 of 2007 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar sl To The Presiding Officer II, Labour Court, Chennai – 600 018. + 1 CC to Mr.Vaidyanathan, Advocate, S.R.No.21980 + 1 CC to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.21478 Writ Petition No.1970 of 2007 & M.P.No.3 of 2007 AKR (CO) SRA (29/04/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/