IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:24-10-2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
WRIT PETITION No.10479 of 1999
G. Jayaraman ... Petitioner
vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
2. The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Coimbatore
3. M. Pooranam
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Labour Court, Coimbatore comprised in I.D.No.198/97 dated 18.1.99 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.C.C. Pratap
For R1 : Mr. Mr.A. Arumugam, Spl.GP
For R3 : Mr.Nazarulla
ORDER
The writ petition is filed against the order of the Labour Court in ID No.198 of 1997 dated 18.1.1999 directing the petitioner to reinstate the third respondent worker with continuous of service and back wages and other attendant benefits with effect from 1.1.96.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 21.6.1999. Pending writ petition, this Court did not grant any interim stay regarding reinstatement as it was stated that the workmen had already been reinstated. Therefore, there was only stay for payment of back wages alone. The interim stay granted was also made absolute on 29.8.2003.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr.C.C. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nazarulla, learned counsel for the third respondent/workman and perused the records.
4. The third respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Officer, which finally reached the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein. The said dispute was taken on file as ID No.198 of 1997 before the Labour Court. Apart from the writ petitioner, his brother viz., G. Radhakrishnan and his father K. Gopalswamy Mudaliar were also made as parties.
5. Originally, the petitioner’s father K. Gopalaswamy Mudaliar was owning the Estate known as Sri Ram Estate. After family partition, the father retained 20% of the share and gave two sons including the petitioner 40% of share in the estate. The partition took place on 1.4.1993. The petitioner was allotted 19 workmen and the third respondent is one of the workmen. After three years, without any rhyme or reason, her service was terminated on 1.1.96.
6. Before Labour Court, the petitioner was examined as M.W.2 and his brother G. Radhakrishnan was examined as M.W.1. The 3rd respondent herself was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the petitioner, 9 documents were marked and they were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.9.
7. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was not responsible for the service period before partition took place and therefore, he produced M.9 showing that the period before 1.4.93 was the responsibility of his father and his brother.
8. The Labour Court disbelieved the authenticity of Ex.M.9 and found that the genuineness of such a document was not proved before the Labour Court.
9. In any event, the Labour Court found that whatever be the stand of the third respondent, for the period before 1.4.93, it is for her to work it out at the appropriate time and in appropriate proceedings. Since her services are dispensed with without following any norms, the Labour Court felt that it was proper to grant reinstatement with back wages. Against this order, this writ petition has been filed.
10. A perusal of the documents filed before the Labour Court including the oral evidence, clearly shows that the petitioner has not made out any case before the Labour Court. Even his contention that the period before 1.4.93 was the responsibility of his father and his brother is not sustainable. There is also no reason adduced for non-employing the third respondent subsequent to 1.1.96,
11. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the award passed by this Court in ID No.198/97 dated 18.1.1999. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
sr
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
2. The Presiding Officer
Labour Court,
Coimbatore
[ PRV / 16095 ]