Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Presiding Officer on 9 September, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
W.A.Nos.533 of 2015
1.Mohammed Raqeef
2.E.Samsathbegum
3.S.Saanbabbi
4.Y.Raseeya
5.A.Bairveen
6.S.Sabira
7.A.Abdul Shuoor
8.C.Anwar
9.K.Vasanthi
10.G.Ganesan
11.A.Usman
12.D.K.Sankar
13.K.Dilshathi
14.A.Tajeeden
15.A.Azhamudin
16.G.Sargunam
17.G.Sivakumar
18.D.Daidass
19.B.Manimegalai
20.R.Marten
21.P.Balan
22.P.Sarasvathi
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
23.P.Muthulakshmi
24.R.Maragatham
25.S.Maragatham
26.M.Sameena
27.M.Veenda
28.S.Rani
29.G.Kuppabai
30.M.Banumathi
31.P.Selvam
32.J.Sujatha
33.S.Khamurunissa
34.S.Parimala
35.A.Jaya
36.P.Latha
37.J.Janbasha
38.C.Sivanatham
39.Jazir
40.Kantha
41.C.Williyams
42.V.S.Govindaraj
43.N.Baskaran
44.N.Yuvaraj
45.K.Dhasithzir
46.C.Valli
47.A.Lakshmi
48.B.Kaliyappan
49.B.Sivakumar
50.V.Selvakumar
51.J.Kesavan
52.S.Venkatesan
53.M.Nirmala
54.V.Rani
55.M.Jaisankar
56.B.Santhi
57.T.Buvaneshwari
58.M.Dhanalakshmi
59.V.Sivaraj
Page 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
60.G.Kumari
61.S.Gandhi
62.N.Ganesan
63.V.Munusamy
64.S.Venkatesan
65.D.Thirumurugan
66.T.Azhilarasi
67.V.Ramesh
68.G.Sivakumar
69.G.Srinivasan
70.G.Sarathi
71.Syed Karmullah
72.S.Kalaikumari
73.B.K.Jayadevi
74.S.Radha
75.B.Selvakumar
76.N.K.Abrak Ahamed
77.R.Hemamalini
78.S.Eswari
79.V.Vijaya
80.S.Nizar Ahamed
81.Usman
82.Mubarak Ali
83.R.Thavamani
84.G.Viji
85.Meenakshi
86.I.Sheela
87.T.Tamilarasi
88.M.Murunnisa
89.P.Amuthavalli
90.V.Vannamaiyil
91.K.Sheeladevi
92.G.Revathi
93.T.M.Ashaff Ali
94.J.M.Askar Basha
95.V.S.Venkatesan
96.K.Santhi
Page 3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
97.K.Kumari
98.Thamasam
99.C.Prema
100.Suriya Prakash
101.K.Ulaganathan
102.M.H.Abubakar
103.K.Duraisamy
104.N.Santhuru
105.K.S.Sankar
106.K.Premalatha
107.P.Chitra
108.C.Palani
109.V.Kumar
110.G.Padma
111.R.Santhi
112.S.Shamiyulla
113.B.Manimegalai
114.S.Megala
115.G.Malathi
116.S.Santhi
117.S.Prema
118.S.Gowri
119.Senthilkumar
120.G.Sathishkumar
121.M.Deivindran
122.P.Margabandu
123.T.Santhaseelan
124.P.Latha
125.J.Shakeerabegam
126.B.Sumathi
127.L.Rahaman
128.V.S.Rangasamy
129.R.Nalini
130.K.Saravanan
131.T.Ramani
132.A.Basha
133.P.Krolina
Page 4 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
134.G.Anjali
135.G.Merry
136.K.Savithri
137.A.S.Suriyakala
138.S.Santha
139.A.Logambigai
140.D.Munisamy
141.J.Ramesh
142.R.Gunaselvi
143.K.Pennarasi
144.C.E.Mohamed Ismail
145.C.N.Thaiyuff
146.V.Sarasa
147.K.Rani
148.M.Ammu
149.D.Raja
150.Z.M.Ibrahim
151.S.M.Mumtaz
152.D.Sarala
153.H.Alim Basha
154.J.Latha
155.M.Kanakambal
156.C.Venda
157.R.Kalaiyarasi
158.S.Doulath Khan
159.M.Malligai
160.G.Jamuna
161.A.Allirani
162.S.Sakera
163.N.Farhana
164.K.Sivagami
165.C.Lilly
166.M.Sakthivel
167.M.Sivagami
168.L.Usha
169.M.Karunanidhi
170.R.Akilbanu
Page 5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
171.Y.Ameen
172.R.Indirani
... Appellants
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court, Vellore.
2.The Management of Floram
Shoes (India) Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
M.C. Road, Agaramcherry Post
Madhanur Via Vellore District.
3.Mr.Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas
Rawther,
Resolution Professional/Liquidator,
M/s.Floram Shoes (India) Private
Limited,
No.R094-SBIOA Unity Enclave,
Mambakkam Post, Near Sivan
Temple, Chennai-600 127.
[R3 is impleaded vide order of this
Court dated 23.09.2024 made in
CMP.Nos.20664 & 20619 of 2024 in
WA.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 (MSRJ &
CKJ)]
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 23.12.2014 made in W.P.No.21656 of
2011 by allowing the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.E.Srinivasan
Page 6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
For Respondents : Labour Court – R1
M/s.Gupta & Ravi - R2
Ms.M.Jayanthi - R3
W.A.Nos.534 of 2015
1. M. Devindran
2.A. Mohamad Rafique
3.I. Samshad Begum
4.S. Samba Bee
5.Y. Razia
6.A. Parveen
7.S. Sabira
8.Abdul Shukur
9.C.A. Anwar
10.K. Vasanthi
11.T. Ganesan
12.A. Usman
13.K.Dilshath
14.A. Thajudeen
15.A. Ajimudeen
16.G. Sarguna
17.G. Sivakumar
18.D. Titus
19.R. Martin
20.P Balan
21.P. Saraswathi
22.P. Muthulakshmi
23.R. Maragatham
24.S. Maragatham
25.M. Sameena
26.M. Venda
27.G. Kuppa Bai
28.J. Sujatha
29.S. Kamaruniza
30.S. Parimala
Page 7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
31.A. Jaya
32.P. Latha
33.J.Chan Basha
34.C. Sivanatham
35.A.Jagir
36.K. Kantha
37.C. Williams
38.V.S. Govindaraj
39.N. Baskaran
40.N. Yuvaraj
41.K. Dhasthagir
42.C. Valli
43.A. Lakshmi
44.K. Kaliyappan
45.B. Sivakumar
46.V. Selvakumar
47.J. Kesavan
48.S. Venkatesan
49.N. Nirmala
50.V. Rani
51.M.Jaisankar,
52.B.Shanthi,
53.Buvaneswari,
54.M.Dhanalakshmi,
55.V.Sivaraj
56.G.Kumari
57.G.Gandhi,
58.N.Ganesan,
59.S.Venkatesan,
60.D.Thirumurugan,
61.T.Ezhilarasi,
62.V.Ramesh
63.G.Sivakumar
64.G.Srinivasan,
65.G.Sarathi
66.S.Sayed Karimullah,
67.S.Kalaikumari,
Page 8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
68.B.K.Jaladevi,
69.S.Radha,
70.B.Selvakumar,
71.N.K.Abrar Ahamed,
72.R.Hemamalini,
73.S.Eswari
74.V.Vijiya
75.S.Nikar Ahamed
76.K.Usman,
77.Z.Mubarak Ali,
78.M.Jayanthi,
79.R.Thavamani,
80.G.Viji,
81.D.Meenakshi,
82.I.Sheela,
83.T.Tamilarasi,
84.M.Muniruza,
85.V.Vanamayel,
86.K.Sheela Devi,
87.G.Revathi,
88.T.M.Asraf Ali,
89.J.M.Askar Basha,
90.V.S.Venkatesan,
91.K.Santhi,
92.K.Kumari,
93.A.Thamsam,
94.C.Prema,
95.K.Duraisami,
96.C.Palani,
97.V.Kumar
98.G.Padma,
99.R.Shanthi,
100.S.Samiullah
101.P.Manimegalai
102.S.Megala
103.G.Malathi
104.S.Shanthi
Page 9 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
105.S.Prema
106.S.Gowri
107.R. Senthil Kumar
108.P. Maragabandhu
109.T. Santhaseelan
110.V.S.Rangasamy
111.R. Nalini
112.K.Saravanan
113.T. Ramani
114.Valli
115.M. Jayanthi
116.K. Selvi
117.S. Vijaya
118.S. Chitra
119.A. Basha
120.G. Mery,
121.K. Savithri
122.A.S.Suriyakala
123.G. Logambigai
124.D. Munusamy
125.J. Ramesh
126.R. Gunaselvi
127.K. Pennarasi
128.C.E. Mohamed Ismail
129.C.N. Thayub,
130.K. Rani
131.M. Ammu
132.D. Raja
133.Z.M. Ibrahim
134.M. Mumthaj
135.D. Sarala
136.H. Aleem Basha
137.J. Latha
138.M. Kanagambal
139.R. Kalaiarasi
140.S. Doulathkhan
141.K. Malliga
Page 10 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
142.G. Jamuna
143.S. Shakira
144.N. Farhanan,
145.K. Sivagami
146.C. Lilly
147.M. Sakthivel
148.M. Sivagami
149.M. Karunaneethi
150.R. Akila Banu
151.V. Munisamy
152.R. Indrani
… Appellants
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court, Vellore.
2.The Management of Floram
Shoes (India) Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
M.C. Road, Agaramcherry Post
Madhanur Via Vellore District.
3.Mr.Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther,
Resolution Professional/Liquidator,
M/s.Floram Shoes (India) Private
Limited,
No.R094-SBIOA Unity Enclave,
Mambakkam Post, Near Sivan Temple,
Chennai-600 127.
[R3 is impleaded vide order of this
Court dated 23.09.2024 made in
CMP.Nos.20664 & 20619 of 2024 in
WA.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 (MSRJ &
CKJ)]
… Respondents
Page 11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 23.12.2014 made in W.P.No.16285 of
2012 by allowing the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.E.Srinivasan
For Respondents : Labour Court – R1
M/s.Gupta & Ravi - R2
Ms.M.Jayanthi - R3
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
1. The brief facts of the case before the Writ Court are as follows:-
1.1 The second respondent/Management, which was engaged in the manufacture of shoes, had run into adverse market conditions, owing to which, it had suspended its manufacturing operations on 12.11.2004. The Floram Shoes Employees Union had raised a dispute against the suspension of operations before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, bilateral discussions were held with the recognised union. Two other unions raised a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the suspension of Page 12 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 operations declared on 12.11.2004.
1.2 This Industrial Dispute culminated into a reference made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal with regard to payment of salary and other benefits to the workers. The dispute was taken up by the Industrial Tribunal as I.D.No.37 of 2007 and the same was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 27.11.2008, which Award had become final.
1.3 In this background, the recognised union and the Management had entered into a settlement on 02.03.2005 under Section 18(1) of the Act, wherein all the workmen had accepted cessation of employment with effect from 12.11.2004, as well as for monetary compensation, apart from agreeing to engage reduced number of workmen after the factory is reopened. The workmen had also agreed not to press the dispute before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. In terms of settlement, all the appellants herein had received the compensation in lieu of accepting cessation of employment with effect from 12.11.2004.
1.4 The appellants herein had filed a Claim Petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act, in C.P.No.164 of 2005 etc. batch, alleging of illegal closure of the factory by not following the procedure under Section 25(O) of the Act and therefore, sought for computation of backwages from April, Page 13 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 2005 to July 2011. The Labour Court had allowed the Claim Petition on 28.07.2011 and had computed the wages by holding that the Management had closed the factory in violation of Section 25(O) and that it was not a case of lockdown. This order dated 28.07.2011 was challenged in W.P.No.21656 of 2011.
1.5 In another Computation Petition in C.P.No.230 of 2011, the Management had filed an interim application (unnumbered), questioning the maintainability of the Computation Petition on the ground that the workers having agreed to the settlement, are debarred from filing a Claim Petition. The Management also questioned the authority of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate disputed claims. By an order dated 22.05.2012, the Labour Court had dismissed the said application and this order was challenged in W.P.No.16285 of 2012. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 23.12.2014, had allowed both the Writ Petitions, which order has been separately challenged in these Writ Appeals.
2. Admittedly, the industrial dispute claiming for reopening of the factory and the salary benefits in I.D.No.37 of 2007 was dismissed on 27.11.2008. As such, there was no adjudication of the dispute raised by the Page 14 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 Union, claiming wages and other benefits for the period from 10.11.2004.
When the workmen had filed the Claim Petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act, the Management had disputed the workers’ claim of retrenchment, but claimed it to be suspension of its operations and also placed reliance on the subsequent settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act. The Management also raised objections claiming that when the workmen had entered into a settlement and received the amount as per the terms of the settlement in lieu of accepting the cessation of the employment, they are precluded now from claiming it to be an illegal closure, when it is actually a case of suspension of operations of the factory.
3. Thus, before the Labour Court, the very foundation through which the workmen sought for computation of their wages on the ground that it was a case of retrenchment, has been seriously disputed by the Management. The consequential issue that may arise for consideration is, as to whether the Labour Court or an Authority, exercising its powers under Section 33C(2) of the Act, may have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed facts, for the purpose of computation of the wages.
Page 15 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
4. In the case of ‘Union of India & others Vs. D.S.M.Agastus Babu & others’ passed in WP.No.21400 of 2025 dated 31.01.2022, reliance has been placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Abdul and others Vs. The Management of E.I.D.Parry (I) Ltd., Sugar Factory, Nellikuppam and another’ in W.P.No.40333 of 2002 dated 03.01.2022, wherein it has been held as follows:-
“6.The scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act that has been dealt in various decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby it has been held that the dispute of entitlement or basis of a claim by the workmen, cannot be adjudicated under this provision. In Central Bank of India Vs. P.S.Rajagopalan reported in AIR 1964 SC 743, it was held that the power of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) extends to interpretations of the award or settlement on which the workmen's rights like execution of Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution, where the basis is referable to the awards or settlements. However, it was clarified that such powers of the Labour Court does not extend to determine disputes of entitlement or the basis of the Page 16 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 claim, if there is no prior adjudication or recognization of the same by the employer.
7. In Bombay Gas Company Ltd., Vs. Gopal Bhiva reported in AIR 1964 SC 752, the same proposition was reiterated. The aforesaid two decisions were referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Company Ltd., Vs. Rameswar reported in AIR 1968 SC 218 and held that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed under Section 33-C(2) must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon, or provided for or must arise and 9 in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workmen and the employer. The ratio laid down in all the aforesaid decisions were also relied upon in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Ganesh Razak and another reported in 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases 235 and ultimately, the scope of Section 33-C(2) was restricted to exclude the powers of the Court to adjudicate disputed entitlements or claims of the workmen. It was further clarified therein that the LabourCourt was only entitled to interpret the award or settlements on which the workmen based their claim. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-Page 17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 “12.The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being, no earlier adjudication or recognition 5 (1968) 1 LLJ 589 : 38 Comp Cas 400 (SC) thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33- C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by tile employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33- C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to Page 18 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.”
8. In the background of the aforesaid legal propositions, the facts of the present case, as projected before the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, were perused. While the workmen had claimed entitlement to receive the “personal allowance”, in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Management had denied their entitlement by stating that though the “personal pay” was paid between the period from May 1985 to 1990, in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same was stopped in the year 1990. The Management had also disputed the claim by stating that the trade union, to which the petitioners herein belonged, was a party in the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since they were aware that they were not entitled to receive “personal allowance” continuously, they are not now entitled for such allowance. Their claim for “personal allowance” was also objected on the ground that neither the trade union nor these petitioners had made a claim for “personal allowance” for the past 13 years, which indicates that they were aware of the Page 19 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 terms of the settlements signed between the trade union and the Management with regard to wages and conditions of service after 1985, more particularly, when the first petitioner was the signatory to the settlement.
9. The petitioners herein are now effectively trying to interpret the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the year 1985 and claim “personal allowance”. Since their entitlement has not been adjudicated earlier in any awards nor has been crystallized by the Management and more particularly, when their very entitlement to claim “personal allowance” is denied by the Management, the Labour Court will not have jurisdiction to determine these disputed facts in the proceedings under Section 33- C(2) of the Act. Thus, by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the petitioners' claim.
10. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the Management that since the workmen had voluntarily retired pursuant to the Scheme offered by the Management and had accepted all the benefits of such voluntary retirement, there cannot be any Page 20 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 scope to construe that there is a settled dispute leading to a claim, which could be raised by the petitioners, who have ceased to become a workmen.
11. In the case of Everestee Vs. District Labour Officer reported in 1999 (3) LLN 678, a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had held that a person who has opted for voluntary retirement, cannot be treated as “workmen”. Likewise, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of E.I.D. Parry Vs. M.N.Padmanabhan and another reported in 2008 (3) CTC 746 had held that in view of the voluntary retirement, the claimants ceased to be a workmen and therefore, cannot raise a claim. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“14. In the case on hand, the first respondent, having opted for VRS and after entering into the Settlement having fully understood the terms of Settlement and particularly Clause 9 thereof and also encashing the amount of Settlement arising thereon, claimed further benefits in the name of pension. If the first respondent is permitted to raise such a grievance even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and accepted the amounts paid to him thereunder, the very Page 21 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 object and the purpose of introducing the Scheme will be defeated. As the first respondent has already ceased to be a workman and on cessation of the jural relationship and on claiming the entire amount of settlement and receiving the same, there cannot be any scope to construe that there is a dispute still existing to raise a claim under Section 2-A of the Act. Therefore, this Court has no reason to believe that there exists any dispute in this case. However, the learned single Judge, without going into the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has come to the conclusion that pension being an amount which would be payable only to an ex-
employee has an intimate link with termination and, therefore, the reference under Section 2-A cannot be rejected, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be sustained.”
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners/workmen placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Satyanarayana Reddy and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported in 2016 (9) SCC 462 and submitted that when a Voluntary Retirement Page 22 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 Scheme (VRS) does not cover the past dues of “personal allowance”, the workmen would be entitled 14 to approach the Labour Court under Section 33-
C(2). The same decision was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the Management.
13. The ratio laid down in Satyanarayana Reddy's case (supra), arise from the peculiar facts of that case, which is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In Satyanarayana Reddy's case, the dispute arose when the workmen were transferred from one company to another. Among these transferred employees, some came to be absorbed back, while others were offered “lay-off compensation”. When these workmen had expressed their willingness to continue to work, a special compensation package (VRS) was extended to them, in lieu of their employment with the company. The terms of the VRS did not make any provision for “lay- off compensation'. It is in this background, the High Court had granted liberty to these workmen to approach the Industrial Tribunal by way of a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court dismissed the claims on the ground that since the workmen had received all the benefits under VRS, they ceased to be a workman as defined under Section Page 23 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 2(s) of the Act. The High Court had upheld the findings of the Labour Court and in this background, the matter was dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. While analysing the scope of a petition under Section 33- C(2) of the Act, in the factual matrix of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the terms of the VRS did not deal with the past dues of “lay-off compensation” and therefore held that the workers had a legal right to claim the “lay-off compensation” under Section 33-C(2). The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“15. We need not refer to the other clauses as they do not really provide for any kind of benefit but stipulate the various aspects for implementation of VRS and the procedure to be adopted. On a perusal of VRS, it is clear as day that it did not deal with the lay-off compensation.
16. As has been laid down in National Buildings Construction Corporation V. Pritam Singh Gill [1972 (2) SCC 1], a claim pertaining to non-payment of suspension allowance could be agitated under the said provision inspite of the employee being Page 24 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 dismissed from service. In A.K.Bindal Vs. Union of India [2003 (5) SCC 163], the two-
Judge Bench has held that after acceptance of the scheme and availing of benefits under VRS an employee could not claim higher wages.
The controversy was different. If the VRS had mentioned about the lay-off compensation, needless to say, the claim would have been covered and the amount received by the workmen would have been deemed to have been covered by the quantum of layoff compensation. That is not the factual position.Therefore, the controversy that arose in Pritam Singh Gill and the dispute that emanated in A.K.Bindal are quite different. Hence, we are disposed to think that there exists no conflict between Pritam Singh Gill and A.K.Bindal.
17. We think it appropriate to say that though there is cessation of relationship between the employee and the employer in VRS but if it does not cover the past dues like lay-off compensation, subsistence allowance, etc., the workman would be entitled to approach the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Page 25 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 Act. If it is specifically covered, or the language of VRS would show that it covers the claim under the scheme, no forum will have any jurisdiction.” 2 The above said extract is self explanatory. Thus, in a petition under Section 33-C(5), the Industrial Tribunal would not be within its powers to adjudicate on “disputed facts” with regard to the entitlement of the workmen. In the light of the above proposition, the facts of the present case were looked into.”…...
5. In the instant case, the Management had taken the defence that they had suspended the operations of the factory and therefore, had entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act and the workers had also received the settlement amount in lieu of cessation of employment. The workmen however claimed it to be an illegal closure under Section 25(O) of the Act and consequently claimed it to be a case of retrenchment. On this basis, they had sought for computation of retrenchment of wages.
Thus, when the very foundation of their claim before the Labour Court was Page 26 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm ) W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 seriously disputed by the Management, the Labour Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot adjudicate such disputed facts, as held in D.S.M.Agastus Babu (supra) and several other decisions relied therein.
6. The learned Single Judge had taken into consideration all these aspects and had rightly allowed both the Writ Petitions. Hence, we do not find any valid grounds or other reasons to interfere with the same.
7. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J]
09.09.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
Page 27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Sni
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court, Vellore.
2.The Managing Director,
Management of Floram
Shoes (India) Private Limited,
M.C. Road, Agaramcherry Post, Madhanur Via Vellore District.
3.Mr.Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther, Resolution Professional/Liquidator, M/s.Floram Shoes (India) Private Limited, No.R094-SBIOA Unity Enclave, Mambakkam Post, Near Sivan Temple, Chennai-600 127.
W.A.Nos.533 & 534 of 2015 09.09.2025 Page 28 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 06:47:29 pm )