P. Deva Arul v. The Presiding Officer

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH , J.) The Writ Petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal challenging an order passed by the Writ Court on 04.11.2013 solely on the quantification of the amount awarded by the Labour Court and confirmed by learned Single Judge as payable to the Petitioner, as compensation.

2.The Petitioner had joined the services of the Dohnavur Fellowship, Tirunelveli District and there is some ambiguity on his date of entry into service. However, that would not be material to decide the issue that arises in this matter as what would be relevant is the date of birth of the Writ Petitioner, which, from records, has been established to be 01.04.1957.

3.This emanates from the extract from the Employees Provident Fund Organisation Register confirming his date of birth as

01.04.1957. A query has also been raised before the concerned authority under the Right to Information Act, who has also confirmed the position that his date of birth is as aforesaid.

4.In the context of the above position, the relevant facts that the Writ Petitioner was dismissed from service by the Management on

27.09.2003. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.51 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court, by order dated

27.10.2009, was of the opinion that enquiry had not been held in an appropriate manner and the management was called upon to prove its charges independently.

5.Thereafter, by an award dated 25.08.2011, passed after due enquiry, the dismissal of the Writ Petitioner was held to be illegal. One twist in tale is that, pending the matter before the Labour Court, the Labour Court found that the Writ Petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and thus expressed its inability to reinstate the Writ Petitioner in service.

6.Thus, while holding that the dismissal on 27.09.2003 was bad in law, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded as compensation to the Petitioner. Challenging the award of the Labour Court, the Writ Petition was filed. Learned Judge has, after a detailed discussion, confirmed the award of the Labour Court to the effect that the dismissal is bad in law. To that extent, the finding of the Labour Court is in favour of the Petitioner and has attained finality, since the order of the Writ Court dated 04.11.2013 has not been challenged by the Management.

7.Needless to say, it is incumbent upon the Management to implement that part of the order forthwith, if not already done. Before us, the Writ Petitioner would assail the quantum of compensation awarded as pitiful and inadequate. The learned Judge has noted the same argument and rejected the same, as, in his opinion, the compensation awarded was quite adequate.

8.In fact, the question of compensation would not arise in this matter, since the finding of the Labour Court (rendered in 2011) to the effect that the Petitioner had attained superannuation is itself incorrect. If, as per records, the date of birth of the Writ Petitioner is 01.04.1957, then he would attain superannuation only on 31.03.2015. The records have established unambiguously that 31.03.2015 is, indeed the date of birth of the Petitioner.

9.The finding of the Labour Court in the Award to the effect that the Writ Petitioner has attained superannuation during the pendency of the matter before it, is thus found to have been rendered in error, and is unsustainable. Though this issue has been touched upon by the learned Judge, who refers to the extract from the Employees Provident Fund Origanisation Register, the finding is that there are other materials placed before the Labour Court by the Management to indicate superannuation of the Petitioner from service during the pendency of the matter before the Labour Court.

10.We have perused the Award, particularly paragraph 11 thereof and not find reference to any other evidences that would crystalise the age of the Petitioner to be anything other than 01.04.1957. Paragraph 11 and 13 of the award of the Labour Court are relevant in this regard and are extracted below: "11)kDjhuUf;F

taJ G+h;j;jpaile;J tpl;lJ vd;W vjph;kDjhuhh; jug;gpy; $wg;gl;lJ. ,J kWf;fg;gl;ljhfj; njhpa tutpy;iy. KdtpNyNa kDjhuhh; 33 tUlq;fs; gzpGhpe;jjhff; $wpAs;shh;. ,e;j W.A.rMi)No.714oofo2014 tof;F 2005y; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. jw;NghJ 2011y; ,Uf;fpNwhk;. vdNt kDtpy; nrhy;yg;gl;l 33 tUlq;fisr; Nrh;j;Njhkhdhy; 39 tUlq;fs; MfpwJ. kDjhuh; Ntiyf;F ve;j tUlj;jpy; te;jhh; vd;W njhpahJ. 20 taJf;Fg; gpwF te;jpUf;fyhk; vd;W ehk; mDkhdpf;f KbAk;. mjd;gb ghh;j;jhy; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; nrhy;yg;gLtJ Nghy; kDjhuUf;F gzp %g;ig milaf; $ba tajhd 58 fle;jpUf;Fk; vdW; njhpa tUfpwJ. Mifahy; mtUf;F kPz;Lk; gzp nfhLf;f Ntz;Lnkd;W ehk; cj;jputpl ,ayhJ. ..... 13)Vw;fdNt ehk; Muha;e;J kDjhuhhpd; gzp ePf;fk; jtW vd;W fz;bUf;fpNwhk;. mth; gzp %g;G taij mile;J tpl;ljhy; kPz;Lk; Ntiy nfhLf;f cj;jputpl ,ayhJ vd;W fz;bUf;fpNwhk;. gpd; rk;gsk; fpilf;fj; jf;fjy;y vdW; fz;bUf;fpNwhk;. ,J Nghd;w R+o;epiyapy; ePjpapd; eyd; fUjp kDjhuhpd; gzp ePf;fk; rl;lg;gb nry;yhJ vdgjhy; mtUf;F kPz;Lk; gzp nfhLf;f cj;jputpl KbahJ vd;gjhy; rl;lg;gb ,y;yhj gzp ePf;fj;jpw;F ,og;gPlhf kl;Lk; njhif fpilf;fj; jf;fJ vd;W ,t;tof;F R+oypy; fUJfpNwd;."

11.In the absence of any factual particular or materials that are available before the Labour Court to justify such a conclusion, we proceed on the basis that 01.04.1957 is the date of birth of the Petitioner. In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order in W.P(MD)No.164 of 2012 dated 04.11.2013 is set aside. The consequence is that the Writ Petitioner would be entitled to all benefits from date of dismissal ie.,

27.09.2003 till 31.03.2015, in accordance with law to be computed and paid over within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. [A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]

14.07.2023

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes cmr To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. cmr

14.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR P.Deva Arul ...Appellant /Vs./ 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. 2.The Management, Dohnavur Fellowship, Dohnavur Post, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, through its Secretary, A.R.David Rajamanian. ...Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 04.11.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2012 For Appellant :Mr.P.Suresh for Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh For R2 :No appearance ****