IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:17-4-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU WRIT PETITION NO:4038 of 1998 M/s C.N. Kandasamy .. Petitioner vs 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore 2. Mrs.Karthikeyani 3.N. Arunachalam 4.N. Divayani Ammal 5.P. Mani 6.P. Subramani .. 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 first respondent in CP Nos.666, 669 an 773/1995 dated 7.11.97 on the file of the first respondent (Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimabtore) and quash the same. For petitioner : M/s Gupta & Ravi For R2 & R6 : Mr.K.V. Shanmuganathan For R4 : Mr.M. Sundaresh For R5 : Mr.R. Dhiraviyanathan ORDER
The petitioner is running a Cinema Theatre and the land, in which, the Cinema Theatre was functioning, belonged to a temple. Subsequently, the temple repossessed the land through Court Proceedings.
2. The three respondents viz., A. Nagarajan, who worked as a Cashier on account of his death is now represented by his legal heirs R.2 to R.4, Mr.P. Mani(R.5), worked as a Sweeper and P. Subramani (R.6) worked as ticket collector. Subsequent to the closure of the cinema Theatre and pursuant to the land being taken over by temple, the workmen claimed certain amounts before the Labour Court by a petition filed under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim of all the three workmen related to the difference in wages between what was actually paid and what is to be paid in terms of a Notification issued under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for employees working in Cinema Theatres and also the statutory payments with reference to the festival and weekly holidays.
3. The writ petitioner was issued with notices on the three claim petitions. He appeared before the Labour Court and contended that late A. Nagarajan was not at all a Cashier and he was doing film distribution work, P. Mani was not a Sweeper, but was doing painting work on the obscene posters by blacking them out and the third workman was employed in a cycle stand by a Contractor and he was a physically challenged person.
4. The Labour Court refused to believe the stand taken by him and also held that as he had not produced necessary Registers to disprove the claim made by the workmen. The petitioner also took the plea that at the time of execution proceedings, the entire documents including the statutory registers in respect of the workmen employed by them were
also removed. Anyhow, the said contention was not believed by the Labour Court.
5. Before the Labour Court, the three workmen produced two crucial orders. One was the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who was the authority under Sec.20 of The Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In that proceedings, the Minimum Wages Authority computed the differential wags between the minimum wage and the actual wage paid to the workmen. That order was not challenged before any Court. Mr.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that it was only an ex-parte order and it cannot have any binding fact.
6. Secondly, the workmen produced the order passed by the controlling Authority under Sec.7 of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 computing the gratuity for the service rendered by late A. Nagarajan and the other two workmen. Once again, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi pointed out that it was also an ex parte order.
7.When two statutory authorities computed the amounts due to the workmen under statutory enactments, it is too late for the petitioner to state that they were ex parte orders. Once it remains unchallenged, the finding rendered therein is binding on the petitioner and the concept of constructive res-judicata will apply and also the petitioner is estopped from contending otherwise.
8. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amounts have been recovered due to coercive proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the materials produced by him were not accepted by the Court and he also took this Court to the vouchers issued by P. Mani and also the correspondence made by A. Nagarajan to show that he did film distribution work.
9. It is not correct to state that those materials can prove that the three workmen had never been employed in the petitioner’s Cinema Theatre. Once the Labour Court, in appreciation of materials placed before it, had come to the conclusion then it is a finding of fact and this Court cannot interfere with the said finding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
10. By the impugned order dated 29.10.1998 this Court directed that each of the workmen be paid Rs.20,000/- out of the amount computed by the Labour Court.
11. Mr.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount has been paid and in respect of the balance amount, he made serious objections and submitted that even materials produced by the workmen will show that before the Minimum Wages authorities, they had claimed that they received more amounts, whereas, before 33C(2) Proceedings, they had stated that they were paid lesser amounts. Therefore, the amount paid pursuant to the order paid by the Minimum Wages authority is liable to be deducted for the total claim.
12. This statement is not contradicted by the respondents.
13. Since the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner is directed to make the balance payment and he can always adjust the amount, said to have been received by the workmen, under the Minimum Wages Act as well as the amounts already paid by the interim orders of this Court and pay the balance amount. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to make his payment, it is open to the respondents/workmen and the legal heirs of A. Nagarajan to approach the Government under Sec.33-C (1) of The Industrial Disputes Act for receiving the balance amount as an arrear of land revenue.
17-4-2008
sr
Index:yes
Website:yes
K. CHANDRU,J.,
sr
To
The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Coimbatore
W.P.NO.4038 of 1998
17-4-2008