The Management of Singanallur Co-operative Housing Society vs T.R. Sathyamoorthy (Deceased), S. Pankajam, Leela Krishnan, S. Krishnan and The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. Though the matter was listed for considering the question of stay, keeping

in view the fact that same question is involved for considering the writ petition on merit, on the consent of the counsels appearing, the entire matter

is taken up for disposal.

The petitioner is a co-operative society. T. R. Sathyamoorthy, the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4 was employed under the writ

petitioner. His services were terminated on 19.11.1983 on the ground that on the date of the initial appointment, the candidate was over aged.

Subsequently on 26.10.1987, the quondam employee filed petition before the Conciliation Officer and ultimately, matter was raised before the

labour court. The labour court in its award dated 19.8.1992 quashed the order of termination and directed that the employee should be reinstated

without backwages but with continuity of service. Thereafter, the employee joined the service on 1.6.1993 without prejudice to his right to claim

backwages. Subsequently, he filed W.P.No.12430 of 1993 challenging the denial of backwages. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ

petition, the employee died and present respondents 2 to 4 were substituted. Ultimately, by order dated 13.10.2000, the writ petition was allowed

and the labour court was directed to determine the backwages payable. Thereafter, the labour court has held that the deceased employee was

entitled to full backwages that is to say, from the date of the dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The aforesaid award is being challenged by the

co-operative society.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 raised preliminary objection stating that in view of the fact that earlier this court had

finalised the question of backwages, that question cannot be reagitated in the present form. This submission though attractive, on the face of it,

does not hold water on a closer scrutiny. The previous award was one of reinstatement without backwages. This court remanded the matter for

disposal in accordance with law with regard to a portion relating to non-payment of backwages. This cannot be construed to mean that the

employee was directed to be paid full backwages for the period. The question whether any backwages could be payable including the period for

which he was not in service, was obviously to be re-determined by the labour court. It cannot be said that the matter had been concluded in any

manner.

Since the termination was found to be illegal, in normal course, reinstatement should have been with backwages and that too, for the entire

period. However, in the present case, it is found that the employee had approached the Conciliation Officer for the first time on 26.10.1987 that is

to say for about four years, he had not raised any dispute. Therefore, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be met by directing

payment of backwages from 26.10.1987 that is to say, the date on which the employee had approached the Conciliation Officer.

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the previous award was for reinstatement with continuity in service. That part of the

award had remained unchallenged. Therefore, it must be taken that the person continued to remain in service in spite of the dismissal and other

notional benefits available to him such as increments or service benefits should be deemed to have been granted. Therefore, while confining the

payment of backwages with effect from 26.10.1987, the writ petitioner is required to calculate the amount payable by giving notional benefits

relating to increments, D.A. etc. and thereafter, on the basis of salary payable with effect from 26.10.1987,the backwages payable thereafter is to

be calculated and paid to the present respondents 2 to 4. The amount lying in the labour court to the credit of I.D.No.341 of 1989, shall be

disbursed to the respondents 2 to 4 and shall be adjusted from the backwages to be calculated and paid by the writ petitioner. This exercise

should be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Subject to aforesaid observation, the writ

petition is allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.810 of 2002 and W.V.M.P.No.7 of 2002 for stay and vacate stay respectively,

are closed.