Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2236 (MAD)

P. James Karunakaran v. Assistant General Manager

2014-07-24

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20.03.2012 made in C.P.No.2 of 2011 and quash the same in so far as rejecting the claim of the petitioner for leave salary, in cadre allowance and interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner joined services of the bank in 1978 as clerk and he was promoted as Stenographer in 1979. After he was issued with charge-sheet dated 22.03.1999 and after a detailed enquiry, a removal order was passed. As the appeal was also rejected, the petitioner raised industrial dispute and the industrial dispute was referred for adjudication by the Government and the same was taken as I.D.No.121/2003. By an award dated 16.06.2005, the Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% backwages and other benefits. The award was not complied with and the bank filed a writ petition on 29.05.2006, nearly after a year. This court, on 13.12.2006, directed the bank to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was not complied with, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal against the said interim order. The issue was, whether the wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will have to be paid from the date of award or from the date of the writ petition. The contention therein was that the bank did not pay wages under section 17-B from the date of award. The contention of the petitioner was accepted and the bank was directed to pay wages from the date of award. Finally the writ petition was dismissed on 19.01.2011. The order of the Tribunal became final and the order in the writ petition was not challenged. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the claim petition, which is the subject matter of the writ petition and the same was taken as Computation Petition No.2/2011. During the pendency of the computation petition, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 04.07.2011 and after contest, the Labour Court passed an order dated 20.03.2012 in C.P.No.2/2011 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the amounts claimed under item Nos.8, 11, 12 and 14. It is also an admitted fact that the amounts under the other heads have already been paid to the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the amounts under the other heads have already been paid to the petitioner. Challenging the disallowed portion of the order, the writ petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that when the Labour Court has passed an award granting all benefits, he is entitled to wages beyond 240 days of accumulated leave, as he has got 10 months leave to his credit. The petitioner further submitted that had he been in service, he would have utilised these leaves and when there is no fault on his part, the denial of wages for 10 months was bad. However, the counsel for the bank and the petitioner admit that the wages due to the petitioner for a period of 240 days have been paid and the remaining issue on hand is, whether the petitioner is entitled to wages for two months i.e. beyond 240 days, which according to them, is the leave accumulated. The other issue is since the Labour Court has passed an award that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and other attendant benefits, whether he is entitled to the pay applicable to the Senior Assistant or Special Stenographers on the ground that the petitioner was eligible and in terms of the award he would have enjoyed the position and earned wages. The petitioner further submitted that the Labour Court was wrong in not granting interest to the petitioner, as prima facie there is a delay in approaching this court challenging the award of the Labour Court and there was continuous delay in other such acts in implementing the award. Only after the filing of Computation petition, the petitioner was reinstated. Hence the Labour Court erred in not granting interest based on the award of the amount due to him in terms of the award. 4. Heard Mr. R. Arumugam and Mr. G. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the first respondent bank respectively. 5. It is not in dispute that the leave beyond 240 days will automatically get lapsed. An employee is entitled to encash only up to 240 days leave and not beyond that. 4. Heard Mr. R. Arumugam and Mr. G. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the first respondent bank respectively. 5. It is not in dispute that the leave beyond 240 days will automatically get lapsed. An employee is entitled to encash only up to 240 days leave and not beyond that. The contention of the petitioner that he would have enjoyed holidays, if he had continued in service, cannot be accepted as the wages payable in terms of the award, includes the wages for the holidays also. The arguments on presumption that he would have enjoyed leave, may not be correct. He would not have taken leave, is a presumption. This court cannot grant any relief, more particularly, no employee is entitled to encash the leave to his credit beyond 240 days. Hence the Labour Court was right in not granting the wages for the leave beyond 240 days. 6. As regards the other contention that the petitioner is entitled to special pay of Senior Assistants or Senior Stenographers in terms of the award, since there is a specific finding that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service in terms of the award (continuity of service and other attendent benefits), Mr. G. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent bank drew the attention of this court to "Guidelines for in-cadre Career Progression of Stenographers". It is a in-cadre career progression and the employee will have to opt to become a Senior Stenographer/Senior Assistant/Special Stenographer/Special Assistant. If option is given, the bank may consider and appoint him. Even assuming that the appointment to the said posts was automatic after completion of 12 years or 23 years of service, as stated in the aforesaid condition, option is a must. Only then the bank will consider the case. In this case, the petitioner has not opted to hold any one of the posts mentioned supra. At this distant point of time contending that benefits of some of the items of the award he would have been entitled, if he had continued in the above post, cannot be accepted and the Labour Court was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 7. The last and final contention is that the Labour Court was wrong in not granting interest for the delay in implementing the award. 7. The last and final contention is that the Labour Court was wrong in not granting interest for the delay in implementing the award. Though there are decisions of this court and other courts granting interest and not granting interest, the contention of the counsel for the bank that unless and until the award specifically specify that the petitioner is entitled to interest, the Labour Court, in a Computation Petition cannot grant interest, is accepted in this case alone and in the appropriate case, it would be decided whether in the absence of any grant of interest in an award of the Labour Court or Tribunal, the Court can grant the interest or not. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.