Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1745 (MAD)

V. Sankaran v. Presiding Officer

2018-06-04

G.R.SWAMINATHAN

body2018
ORDER : Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, J. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. 2. The petitioner was employed in the second respondent cement factory, as Machinery Assistant. He had an impeccable record from December 1982, when he was first appointed till 17.04.2013. The petitioner met with an accident on 15.11.2012. He had to be on medical leave for 5 months in this regard. After he became fit, he reported for duty on 17.04.2013, with the fitness certificate. But, the petitioner was not allowed to join duty. He was given medical leave from 02.04.2013 till 30.08.2013 and asked to come thereafter. The petitioner also sought alternative work vide his letter dated 18.04.2013, based on the suggestion of his Doctor. 3. According to the petitioner, the management did not favourably respond to his request for allotting alternative work. They also did not make any payment for the period in question. The petitioner continued to meet his superiors. Since his request was not accepted, he raised an Industrial Dispute before Labour Officer of Tirunelveli, on 10.09.2014. Conciliation talks however failed. He therefore submitted a claim statement before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, and the same was taken up as I.D.No.3 of 2015. The Labour Court by the impugned award dated 05.02.2016, allowed the above said I.D., but instead of granting reinstatement and back wages, it directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only] as lump sum compensation. It also directed the Management to pay the petitioner, all his retirement benefits for his thirty years service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on the provisions of Section 47 of Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995” [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The said provision states that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce any rank of an employee who acquires disability during his service. The term 'Establishment' has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act. The said provision states that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce any rank of an employee who acquires disability during his service. The term 'Establishment' has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act. It refers a Corporation, established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. Obviously, the second respondent herein will not come within the purview of the said definition. Therefore, there is no purpose in invoking the provisions of the said Act in the present case. However, as rightly found by the Labour Court, the petitioner was never terminated from service. It is true that the petitioner kept requesting for alternative work. But then, the fact remains that neither his request was disposed of by the Management in the manner known to law, nor was he formally terminated from service. The petitioner was not given any salary from December 2012. The Labour Court taking into account, the stand of the Management and also the fact that the petitioner was having disability, took the view that the relief of reinstatement will not be proper. It instead chose to award compensation. The Court was of the view that directing the Management to pay thirty months salary would meet the ends of justice. Of course, this was apart from the retirement benefits, to which the petitioner was entitled to. 6. This Court is of the view that instead of thirty months salary, it could be enhanced to thirty six months salary. The compensation payable to the petitioner is therefore enhanced from Rs. 5,50,000/- to Rs. 6,60,000/- [36 X 18,337/- = Rs. 6,60132/- rounded of Rs. 6,60,000/-]. The award passed by the Labour Court is confirmed in all other respects. The lump sum compensation directed to be paid to the petitioner is Rs. 6,60,000/-. 7. With this modification, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.