S. Subramanian vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and The Management of Engineering and Industrial Foundary

A. Arumughaswamy, J.—The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to issue a writ in the nature of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent in C.P. No. 286 of 2000 dated 6th October 2003 and subsequent order dated 14.7.2004 in I.A. No. 540 of 2004 and for a direction to the second respondent to pay the allowances such as earn leave encashment benefits, declared Bonus, declared ex-gratia attendance benefits incentive and payment of incentives and payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. for the period of delay. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are:- The petitioner and his co-workman K. Ponnuswamy were entered in to the service of the second respondent from 1.5.1959 as Moulders and continued in service till 1.8.1977 and 14.9.1977 respectively. While they were working in the factory, the then partners of the second respondent firm was patronising a Trade Union and the workmen were unable to get redress for even their small demands such as leave and change of shifts etc. So the petitioner and some of his co-workmen began to organise themselves into a Trade Union, registered the same as Socialist Thozhilalar Sangam and began to function from 6.6.1976. The partners of the second respondent firm imposed changes in the working conditions of the workmen who become the members of the new union and began to victimise them by levelling false and concocted charges. Consequently, the petitioner and his co-workman K. Ponnusamy who were prominent in the Trade Union activities, were dismissed from employment from 1.8.1977 and 14.9.1977, respectively.

Thereafter, the issue of their non-employment was referred to the adjudication of the Labour Court, Coimbatore vide G.O.Ms. No. 2032 dated 10.9.1987 and it was taken up on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. 228 of 1987. The Labour Court, Coimbatore has quashed the dismissal orders passed by the second respondent and directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner and his co-workman K. Ponnuswamy with 25% of backwages along with the cost of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the second respondent filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 12475 of 1990 and 12476 of 1990 and the same were dismissed by this Court by order dated 25.8.1999. Against which the second respondent preferred writ appeals No. 73 and 84 of 2000 and the same were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 4.2.2000. During the pendency of the writ appeal the co-workman K. Ponnuswamy passed away on 18.11.1999.

Thereafter, since the second respondent refused to reinstate the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he filed an application for computation of the backwages and other benefits u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act on the file of the first respondent. Similarly, the legal heirs of K. Ponnusamy also filed an application and both the applications were taken up on the file of the first respondent in C.P. Nos. 286 of 2000 and 287 of 2000 respectively and the first respondent decided by allowing only the basic pay and dearness allowance and rejected the claims of bonus, ex-gratia amount, leave encashment benefits and interest and computed the amount, deducting the subsistence allowance paid to them during the pendency of writ petition and writ appeal u/s 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Being aggrieved by that portion of rejecting the claims of bonus, ex-gratia, leave encashment and interest and also on the deduction of the subsistence allowance amount, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when once the Labour Court has passed an award for reinstatement of the petitioner with 25% of backwages, the first respondent, the petitioner is entitled for bonus, ex-gratia amount, leave encashment benefits and interest at the rate of 25%. Hence, she prays that the writ petition has to be allowed.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the petitioner is entitled for whatever the computation arrived at by the Labour Court in C.P. No. 286 of 2000. Otherwise, if he has got any grievance, he ought to have preferred appeal. But so far no appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the computation arrived at by the Labour Court. Hence, he prays that the writ petition has to be dismissed.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and his co-workman K. Ponnuswamy were dismissed from service and the issue of their non-employment was referred to the adjudication of the Labour Court, Coimbatore and it was taken up on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. 228 of 1987. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court, Coimbatore has quashed the dismissal orders passed by the second respondent and directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner and his co-workman K. Ponnuswamy with 25% of backwages along with the cost of Rs. 200/- According to the petitioner, since he has attained the age of superannuation, the second respondent has refused to reinstate him in service and thereafter, he preferred an application u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act for computation of his backwages and the Labour Court has disposed of the said application in C.P. No. 286 of 2000 holding that the petitioner is entitled for 25% of basic pay and dearness allowance alone towards backwages, however, rejecting the other allowances claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has received the said amount from the second respondent.

Now, the very short point for my consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the other allowances as claimed by him such as earn leave encashment benefits, declared Bonus, declared ex-gratia attendance benefits incentive and payment of incentives?

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent, these claims have been negatived by the Labour Court, the petitioner is not entitled to other than the relief granted by the Labour Court. Furthermore, even according to the petitioner, whatever the relief granted by the Labour has already been complied with by the second respondent. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the Labour Court in rejecting the other allowances claimed by the petitioner need not be interfered with. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.