AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Both wit petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon''ble Chief Justice vide order dated 18.8.2011.
Both writ petitions challenge the same Award.
While in the first writ petition, the management challenge the award in I.D. No. 136 of 2001, dated 18.5.2004, wherein the labour court, Salem
had directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, but without backwages. In the second writ petition, which was filed after five
years, the workman challenged the same award insofar as it had denied backwages for the period of non employment.
The first writ petition was admitted on 4.3.2005. Pending the writ petition, this Court had granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the aggrieved
workman filed a vacate stay application in WVMP No. 63 of 2009. On 22.10.2009, this Court had directed the management to deposit 50% of
the last drawn wages from May 2004 till October, 2008 with the labour court as a condition precedent for grant of stay.
The second writ petition filed by the workman was admitted on 16.09.2009. Subsequently, the same was directed to be posted along with the
earlier writ petition filed by the management. Hence both writ petitions were listed together.
When the matter came up for final hearing, a memo was filed by the management stating that if the Award was implemented, then the workman
was eligible to get Rs. 8,27,120/-. This is on the basis that the last drawn wages was Rs. 12129/- per month. If it is calculated from 18.5.2004 to
17.5.2008, then it worked out to Rs. 5,82,192/- and the gratuity for 35 years of service worked out to Rs. 2,44,928/-. The management pursuant
to the interim order has already deposited Rs. 3,48,435/- and that the balance of Rs. 4,78,695/-, they are willing to pay as an ex-gratia provided
the workman was willing to receive the said amount.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that his client is willing to receive the amount as per the award passed by the labour
court. Even otherwise, his writ petition in W.P. No. 19037 of 2009 is not maintainable as it has been filed after five years after the award in I.D.
No. 136 of 2001, dated 18.5.2004. It is seen that the Petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation. Hence the question of his being
reinstated in service will not arise. Therefore this Court is satisfied with the offer of the Respondent and that the monetary relief by the management
will give quietus to the main dispute.
On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is hereby directed the management, i.e., the Petitioner in W.P. No. 7430 of
2005 to pay a sum of Rs. 8,27,120/- as a final settlement of the Award in the industrial dispute. On such payment, the workman P. Ayyadurai will
have no further claim against the management. The said sum of Rs. 8,27,120/- will comprise of gratuity of Rs. 2,44,928/- and the balance amount
will be treated as an ex-gratia payment. The said payment given by the management does not represent any wages and as such not eligible for any
Provident Fund contribution. This clarification is given, lest the department may be demanded proportionate contribution on the said amount. Out
of the sum of Rs. 8,27,120/-, the workman can withdraw a sum of Rs. 3,48,435/-, which is lying in deposit to the credit of the industrial dispute
before the labour court, Salem as per the interim order of this Court. The balance of Rs. 4,78,695/- will be paid by the Petitioner management
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this direction, both writ petitions stand disposed of. The Award in I.D. No.
136 of 2001 will stand modified accordingly. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions stand closed.