IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.01.2011 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.Nos.22818 and 22819 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 A.L.Chidambaram .. Petitioner in both W.Ps. .. Vs .. 1. The Manager, Atomic Energy Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd., Shopping Centre, Kalpakkam – 603 102. 2. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai. ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Prayer in both W.Ps.:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 16.05.2006 of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, the second respondent made in C.P.Nos.190 of 1994 and 525 of 2001 respectively and quash the same and direct the first respondent to effect payment as per claim petition made. For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan For R-1 : Mr.P.G.perumal Pandian For R-2 : Court COMMON ORDER The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.05.2006 in C.P.Nos.190 of 1994 and 525 of 2001 respectively. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed as a Sales Clerk with the first respondent Co-operative Society on 18.05.1980. After the petitioner had put in 11 years of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service, he was issued a charge sheet for the misconduct. However, without holding any enquiry to prove the charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 06.07.1991. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted on 31.05.1993 and the order of dismissal/termination was set aside. 4. The petitioner, after the acceptance of the appeal, approached the first respondent Co-operative Society to join duty. But he was not allowed to join duty. 5. The petitioner, therefore, filed C.P.No.190 of 1994 claiming wages and other benefits for the period from January 1991 to January 1994, claiming a sum of Rs.93,463.05/- as determined amount payable to him. The claim petition filed by the petitioner was allowed ex-parte. On an application made by the first respondent Co-operative Society, ex-parte order was set aside. 6. The first respondent Co-operative Society challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by filing W.P.No.4459 of 1996. In the writ petition, the proceedings in the claim petition filed by the petitioner was also challenged. 7. This Court, vide order dated 18.08.2000, confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. 8. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the second claim petition vide C.P.No.525 of 2001 claiming wages and other benefits for subsequent period from February 1994 to August 2001 as detailed in the claim petition. 9. The learned Labour Court dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that since the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal) did not direct the payment of backwages, therefore, he was not entitled to claim wages under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. The writ appeal filed by the first respondent Co- operative Society vide W.A.No.871 of 2001 was also dismissed on 06.11.2007. 11. It was only after the dismissal of the writ appeal that the petitioner was allowed to join duty on 27.12.2007. The petitioner, on joining, was given the benefit of continuity of service, but the backwages were not given to him. 12. The case of the petitioner is that he was issued with fresh charge sheet for the very same charges, on which he was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal was set aside by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Chennai, only with an intention to deny backwages to the petitioner. 13. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet by challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent Co-operative Society to issue fresh charge sheet. 14. The petitioner, challenges the impugned order of the Labour Court on the ground, that the order of the Labour Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of records, as it has rejected the claim petitions merely on the ground, that the amount claimed cannot be said to be a determined sum in absence of the order of the Appellate Authority directing the payment of backwages. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that with the acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the order of dismissal, status quo anti was restored. Consequently, the petitioner would be deemed to have been in the service. 16. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once an order of dismissal was set aside by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits, thus the petitioner had a pre-existing right to claim wages under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. It was not a civil suit against the order of dismissal, where decree was required to be interpreted to see whether it was a Decree passed with consequential benefits or not, nor it was an award of the learned Labour Court. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was in exercise of statutory jurisdiction. 18. It is well settled law that appeal is in continuation of the proceedings. Therefore, once an order of dismissal was set aside by the Appellate Authority, it is to be taken as if there were no order of punishment. Therefore, the employee is entitled to all the benefits by treating him to be in service. The learned Labour Court was wrong in holding that there were no pre-existing right. The order under challenge therefore suffers from patent illegality. 19. For the reasons stated, the writ petitions are allowed, and the impugned orders of the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai, are set aside. The cases are remitted back to the learned Labour Court to commute the wages payable to the petitioner. 20. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the claim petitions filed by the petitioner on merits in accordance with law by treating that the petitioner has pre-existing right to invoke the previsions of Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since 1994, the learned Labour Court is directed to decide the claim petitions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 22. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar jrl To 1. The Manager, Atomic Energy Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd., Shopping Centre, Kalpakkam – 603 102. 2. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai. + 2 ccs to Mr. K.V. Anantha Krushan, Sr.5439 W.P.Nos.22818 & 22819/2008 BK(CO) EU 21.2.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/