IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.8.2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
W.P.No.976 of 2001
The Management of
Sri Saraswathi Mills Ltd.,
Saraswathi Nagar
Thiruthani 631 211 .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Presiding Officer
II Additional Labour Court
Madras
2. S.Ganesh (Deceased)
3. G.Kalikadevi
4. G.Castro
(RR3 and 4 substituted in the place of
the deceased 2nd respondent as per
order of this Court dated 21.12.2001
in W.P.M.P.No.37493 of 2001) .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the first respondent herein in C.P.No.112/96 on its file and to quash its order, dated 30.11.1998.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Jayaraman
For Respondents : Mr.D.Hariparanthaman
for R2 to R4
O R D E R
It has been stated that the second respondent was working as a clerk in the petitioner Mills. The second respondent was transferred to the petitioner’s depot at Malegaon in Maharashtra State by an order, dated 25.6.1993. The second respondent did not report for work at the transferred place. However, he had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.274 of 1993, before the District Munsif Court, Thiruthani. He had also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.676 of 1993 in O.S.No.274 of 1993. In the said suit, he had sought for a declaration that the order of transfer, dated 25.6.1993, is illegal and void as the petitioner herein has no right or power to transfer him. By an order, dated 6.7.1993, the interlocutory application for an order of injunction had been dismissed stating that the order of the transfer cannot be interfered with except when it is mala fide in nature.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent had filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application in C.M.A.No.23 of 1993, before the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, which had reversed the order passed by the trial Court and had held that the order of transfer had been passed without any right being vested in the petitioner to transfer the second respondent. Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.676 of 1993 in O.S.No.274 of 1993, had been set aside, without going into the question as to whether the order of transfer is mala fide or not.
3. It has been further stated that the second respondent did not join duty and he had been applying for leave, from 5.6.93 to 31.3.94. While so, the petitioner had filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.283 of 1995. A Civil Miscellaneous Petition had also been filed in C.M.P.No.1213 of 1995, praying for an order of interim stay of the operation of the order passed by the the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram. However, no interim order had been granted by this Court. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent had filed a claim petition, under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for the period from June, 1993 to February, 1996, at the rate of Rs.2611.35, per month for a period of 33 months, and a sum of Rs.3,000 as bonus for the year 1994-95. Thus, the second respondent had claimed a total sum of Rs.86,174.44. The petitioner had filed a detailed counter contesting the claims made by the second respondent. It was stated that the second respondent is not entitled to the amount claimed by him, since he was unauthorisedly absent from 5.6.93 to 31.8.94. Excepting for intermittent periods in between. After considering the rival claims, the first respondent Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the second respondent is entitled to the wages for the period of 22 months amounting to Rs.57,449.70 and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bonus. Thus, the first respondent Labour Court had passed an order holding that the second respondent is entitled to a total sum of Rs.60,449.70. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, dated 30.11.98, made in C.P.No.112 of 1996, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 had submitted that at the time of admitting the writ petition, this Court had granted an order of interim stay of the order, dated 30.11.1998, made in C.P.No.112 of 1996, by an order, dated 19.1.2001, made in W.M.P.No.1332 of 2001, in W.P.No.976 of 2001. Subsequently, the interim order granted by this Court, on 19.1.2001, had been made absolute on condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the substituted parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was also said that the order of interim stay would stand automatically vacated if the condition was not complied with within the specified period.
5. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 had submitted that the third and fourth respondents had been substituted in the place of the deceased second respondent as per the order of this Court, dated 21.12.2001, made in W.P.M.P.No.37493 of 2001. However, both the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents 2 to 4 are not in a position to state as to whether the condition imposed by this Court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the substituted respondents, by its order, dated, 21.2.2001, had been complied with or not. They are also not in a position to say about the present stage of the civil proceedings challenging the order of transfer issued against the petitioner.
6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mill that the petitioner Mill is not interested in pursuing the matter any further and therefore, the writ petition may be closed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 had submitted that the petitioner Mill may be directed to pay the balance amount to the respondents 3 and 4, who are the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent, after deducting the amounts already paid, if any, in accordance with the order passed by the first respondent Labour Court in C.P.No.112 of 1996, dated 30.11.1998. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mill has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.
7. On such submission being made, the writ petition is closed as no further orders are required to be passed therein, on merits. Therefore, the petitioner Mill is directed to pay the balance amount to the respondents 3 and 4, who are the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent, after deducting the amounts already paid, if any, in accordance with the order passed by the first respondent Labour Court in C.P.No.112 of 1996, dated 30.11.1998, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
11.8.2008 INDEX : YES INTERNET : YES lan/csh M.JAICHANDREN J., To: 1. The Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court Madras W.P.No.976 of 2001 11.8.2008