AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
(i) W.P. (MD) No. 4990 of 2008 and (ii) W.P. (MD) No. 10901 of 2010
In the first Writ petition the petitioner is the management, aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.3 of 2003 dated 23.11.2007.
By the aforesaid order, the first respondent Labour Court computed amounts towards unpaid wages for the petitioner from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001. The amounts worked out to Rs.5,68.20. Challenging the said order, the Writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner Management.
Notice of motion was ordered on 11.06.2008. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was granted.
After waiting for two years, the contesting respondent filed the second Writ petition W.P.(MD)No.10901 of 2010 seeking to challenge the very same order in so far it relates to denial of wages for the period from 01.12.2001 to 14.12.2001 and for a consequential direction to the management to refund the wages for the said period and that Writ petition was admitted on 23.08.2010.
In view of the fact that both writ petitions were challenged the very same order of the Labour Court, they were taken together and a common order is passed. For convenience, parties are referred to as management and workman as the case may be.
In the first Writ petition, the contention of the management was that the petition u/s 33(C)(2) was not maintainable as there is a serious dispute regarding the sanction of earn leave for the period from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001. The order of the Labour Court was based on surmises and conjuncture and the reliance placed upon Ex.B2 was in contravention of the provisions of the standing orders. It is admitted that the workman has been granted earn leave for 3 days from 19.12.2001 to 21.12.2001 and the balance period has to be rejected.
Before the Labour Court, the workman claimed unpaid salary for a sum of Rs.5,680.20 for the period in December 2001 along with interest. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as P.W.1 and on his side four documents were filed and the same were marked as Exs.P.1 to 4. On the side of the management one Baskaran was examined as R.W.1 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. The Labour Court framed four issues and it found that since the management has granted earn leave for the period from 19.12.2001 to 21.12.2001 for 3 days. It is also bound to sanction the wages for the said period. But, with reference to the payment for the period from 01.12.2001 to 14.12.2001, as it was the stand of the management that the amount has already been deposited before the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Board. The workman can seek remedy from the said board for withdrawal of the said amount.
Subsequently, the workman filed an application before the Labour Court, which lead to the Labour Court passing further order on 23.11.2007, rejecting the case of the workman that even the amount of Rs.1,910/-should be paid by the management, the same was not acceptable giving liberty to the workman for taking the money from the Labour Welfare Board. The contention of the workman was that since already the management has filed the Writ petition and he is also filed the present Writ petition for that portion of the order in which he was directed to approach the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Board.
It is not clear as to how the workman filed the Writ petition after two years after the management filed a Writ petition. It may be for the reason to a counter-blast the case filed by the management. In any event this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ petition filed by the workman as there was no denial of the payment and the amount has already been deposited by the management to the Labour Welfare Board, it is for the worker to workout his remedy in terms of the observation and not to challenge the Labour Court''s order in this regard. Therefore, both on ground of delay as well as on the ground that he was not prejudiced by that order, the W.P.(MD)No.10901 of 2010 stands dismissed.
Insofar as the case filed by the management is concerned, first of all what was directed to be paid by the workman, was very small amount and there is no principle of law involved in this case. Though an attempt is made that such a claim is contrary to the standing order, the Labour Court has taken note of the objection made by the management and it held that having sanction the earn leave cannot curtail the leave asked for by the workman. In any event, this Court do not find any case made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the both the Writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.