IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.16601 of 2000 Rangasamy Special Officer, Veeranampalayam Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Veeranampalayam Post, Paramathivelur Taluk, Namakkal District. ... Petitioner (Cause title amended as per order dated 24.02.2010 by KCJ in WPMP.No.149/10 in WP.16601/00 Vs 1.The Labour Court, Salem. 2.V.M.Thangavel ... Respondents PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in and by his order dated 28.04.2000 in I.D.No.161/95 quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents : Mr.Nazrulla for Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan for R2 O R D E R
The writ petition was initially filed by the President of Veeranampalayam Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Veeranampalayam Post, Paramathivelur Taluk, Namakkal District. The Society was aggrieved by the Award passed by the first respondent – Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.161 of 1995 dated 28.04.2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed restatement of the second second respondent with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits together with costs of Rs.2000/-.
2.The writ petition was admitted on 27.09.2000. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner Society deposits 50% of the amount and on such deposit, the Labour Court was directed to invest the amount in a nationalised bank into a fixed deposit for a period of five years.
3. An application was taken out by the second respondent for a direction to pay the monthly wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also to vacate the interim stay granted already. These matters were disposed of by a common order dated 30.12.2002. This Court recorded that the deposit had already been made and that the Society shall pay the workman the last drawn wages from the date of filing of the writ petition and that the arrears on account of the same should be paid within six weeks.
4. It is now stated that a sum of RS.22,125/- has been deposited in the Indian Bank, Salem on 08.11.2000. Initially, the writ petition was filed by the President of the Society. Subsequently, the Special Officer of the Society filed an application in WPMP.No.149 of 2010 to transpose himself in the place of the petitioner. This Court by an order dated 24.02.2009 allowed that application. Accordingly, the Special Officer has come on record to prosecute the writ petition.
5. It is the case of the second respondent that he was employed in the petitioner’s Milk Producers Society as a milk Tester from 1983 and from 20.02.1984 on a regular basis and that his salary was Rs.750/- per month. Subsequently, he fell ill and from 20.12.1994, he was on medical leave. When he returned to work with appropriate medical certificate on 23.05.1995, he was orally informed that he will not be allowed to join duty. The Workman raised an industrial dispute and took up the matter before the first respondent Labour Court.
6. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.161 of 1995. On notice from the Labour Court, a reply was sent in the name of the Extension Officer-cum-Special Officer. It was stated that the second respondent was directed to report for duty on the expiry of his medical leave. Despite the same, he did not come for work. He also gave a resignation letter to that effect. His resignation letter was placed before the General Body and 74 members of the general body had signed the general body resolution. The petitioner did not make any appeal against the said decision. Subsequent to the petitioner’s resignation, another person was appointed and there is no scope for the second respondent being restored to service.
7. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner/ Management examined three witnesses M.W.1 to M.W.3. On the side of the second respondent/workman, he examined himself as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, 21 documents were filed and were marked as Exs.M1 to M21 and the Workman filed 10 documents and were marked as Exs.W1 to W10.
8. The Labour Court held that the resignation letter on which reliance was placed upon in Ex.M10 dated 20.04.1995 is not that of the second respondent and he was orally terminated from service. In that view of the matter, the relief was granted as set out above.
9. In view of the contention of the parties, the original records were summoned from the Labour Court. Accordingly, the original records were produced before this Court for perusal.
10. It is seen from the records that Ex.M10- resignation letter was sent for opinion by the expert. In the first opinion, as found in Ex.M16, was given by one handwriting expert at Bangalore. She had stated that the signature found in Ex.M10 were not tallying with the admitted signatures found in the other documents produced. This report was dated 28.04.1997. Ex.M19 was given by another handwriting expert at Ananthalpur. In his report, he had stated that the signature found in Ex.M10 tallies with that of the workman. In the light of these conflicting reports it has to be seen whether the case pleaded by the petitioner/Management can be accepted.
11. Though the workman had contended that he was on leave and had send periodical letters and certificate, marked as Exs.W1 to W4, he had not given any reason for his long absence. In the present case, the Workman being a milk Tester, was absent for more than six months. It was also contended that he was not given employment and a resignation letter was fabricated. There are conflicting opinions given by the handwriting experts were found and those reports were also marked before the Labour Court.
12. If it is a case of resignation then the individual dispute is clearly not maintainable under Section 2A(2) of the I.D.Act. On the other hand, if it is not a case of resignation, then the question arises for consideration is whether the second respondent can be directed to be reinstated or having regard to the situation, namely, that the dispute had been pending for the last 16 years, whether the relief can be moulded by this Court.
13. In the present case, it was the stand of the petitioner Society that the second respondent was acting as an hereditary Poosari and there has been litigation over that issue through a writ petition and a civil suit. But this Court is not inclined to go into those issues. It is suffice to state that in the light of the conflicting expert opinions and also the fact that the workman’s resignation was placed before the general body and the general body resolution was signed by as many as 74 members and these facts were not controverted. Hence, this Court is not inclined to uphold the Award directing the reinstatement of the petitioner that too with backwages. The petitioner had the benefit of last drawn wages paid under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act for the last 10 years. He was also allowed to draw quarterly interest from the amounts deposited in the Labour Court. When the stand of the parties are at variance and the Workman having had the benefit of last drawn wages and the petitioner having proved to the satisfaction of this Court that the workman was disabled from attending to his work for more than six months, this Court has no other option except to modify the Award.
14. Under the circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed partly. Considering the fact that the second respondent/workman had worked for number of years and without going into the controversy, this court is of the view that the second respondent may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited pursuant to the order of this Court including the interest if any accrued thereon. This will be in full and final settlement of all his dues due from the petitioner.
15. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
office to Note: The original file shall be returned to the Labour Court.
svki
To
The Labour Court,
Salem