Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 74 (MAD)

Devakottai Municipality v. Presiding Officer

2016-01-06

D.HARI PARANTHAMAN

body2016
ORDER : D. Hari Paranthaman, J. 1. The petitioner is the Devakottai Municipality. The respondents 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of one late Thainesh, who was employed as Office Assistant in the petitioner Municipality. He joined service on 01.08.1969. He was later regularised in service on 17.08.1988. When he completed 58 years, he was retired from service by the petitioner Municipality on 31.01.2008. Later he died on 19.06.2008. 2. A claim petition in C.P. No. 54 of 2010 was filed before the Labour Court, Madurai under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, claiming wages upto the age of 60 years, since the Municipality prematurely retired the deceased employee at the age of 58 years. The said claim petition was resisted by the petitioner Municipality. 3. Before the Labour Court, the sixth respondent herein was examined as a witness on behalf of the legal heirs, who filed claim petition before the Labour Court. Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the writ petitioner, one Velusamy was examined and Exs.R1 to 8 were marked. 4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court passed an order dated 24.02.2015 in C.P. No. 54 of 2010, directing the writ petitioner to pay Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only). Though the respondents 2 to 6 claimed Rs. 1,68,000/- upto 60 years of the age of the deceased employee, the Labour Court granted wages upto the date of death of the deceased employee and also Rs. 1000/- was ordered towards cost. The writ petition is questioning the aforesaid order of the Labour Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the claim petition as there is no pre-existing right to the respondents 2 to 6 to claim wages beyond 58 years. Therefore, the learned counsel has sought to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. 6. I am not inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court has passed an order placing reliance on the order dated 19.04.2007 in a writ petition in W. P. (MD) No. 1771 of 2007 filed by one Mr. Pandaram, which was confirmed on 12.06.2007 in a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 200 of 2007. Thiru. The Labour Court has passed an order placing reliance on the order dated 19.04.2007 in a writ petition in W. P. (MD) No. 1771 of 2007 filed by one Mr. Pandaram, which was confirmed on 12.06.2007 in a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 200 of 2007. Thiru. Pandaram was also an Office Assistant, who was retired from service on 30.06.2005 at the age of 58 years. He questioned the same before the High Court and this Court held that the Office Assistants are entitled to continue upto 60 years of age. In fact, G.O. Ms. No. 202, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 16.10.2008 was issued in respect of Thiru. Pandaram and the same was marked as Ex. R8. 7. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Labour Court. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the claim petition could be treated as writ petition and this Court could give the same relief, by exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, particularly, when the writ petitioner is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Labour Court impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. A direction is issued to the writ petitioner to pay the amount as ordered by the Labour Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is also dismissed.