Madras High Court
In Both W.P.S vs The General Manager on 7 April, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017
In both W.P.s
R.Venkatesan,
No.105, M.C.Road, Solur Village,
Alangakuppam Post, (Via)
Sanakuppam- 735 814
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The General Manager
Florind Shoes Pvt Ltd, H.C.Road, Solur
Village, Alangkuppam Post, (Via),
Sanakuppam
2.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Vellore
Respondent(s)
WP No. 25233 of 2017
PRAYER
calling for the records of the Award dated 17.5.2017 passed in I.D. No.14/ 2016
on the file of the 2nd respondent Court, and quash the same and consequently to
direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, salary and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm )
2 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017
attendant benefits from 3.9.2015 to till the date of disposal of this writ petition
and to order any other remedy as this Court.
WP No. 25234 of 2017
PRAYER
calling for the records of the Award dated 17.5.2017 passed in C.P. No.19/ 2016
on the file of the 2nd respondent Court, and quash the same and consequently to
direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, salary and
attendant benefits from 3.9.2015 to till the date of disposal of this writ petition
and to order any other remedy as this Court.
In both W.P.'s
For Petitioner(s): M/S.S.Thamizharasi
For Respondent(s): R-2 Labour Court
R1-not ready notice (in both the
writ)
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in the present writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the second respondent rejecting his prayer for reinstatement into service and also shooting down his prayer for direction to the first respondent to pay amounts under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the present writ petitions have been filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm ) 3 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017
3. Considering the short point to be discussed, this Court is not inclined to go deep into the contents of the affidavit and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was working as a Maintenance Supervisor under the first respondent. According to the petitioner, he was terminated from service on 03.09.2015 without any prior intimation. Therefore, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and also filed a petition under Section 33C(2) seeking direction to the first respondent to settle his dues.
5. By order dated 17.05.2017, the learned Tribunal had negatived both the claims. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the petitioner would not fall within the meaning of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed as a Maintenance Supervisor and his job required allotment of workers to various maintenance work. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was doing the job of a discretionary authority and therefore, would not fall within the definition of a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm ) 4 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017 workman. This Court is in complete agreement with the finding of the Labour Court. The petitioner cannot call himself as a workman. To raise an Industrial Dispute invoking Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the person should prove that he was only a workman defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the petitioner was doing a supervisory job. Therefore, he cannot be termed to be a workman. This Court is in complete agreement with the finding of the Labour Court and confirms the rejection of I.D.No.14 of 2016. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.25233 of 2003 stands dismissed.
6. To maintain a petition u/s.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the claimant should prove that there existed a pre-existing right. In this case, admittedly, a petitioner was not a workman and therefore he cannot challenge his termination invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the consequent computation petition filed is also not maintainable. This Court confirms the order passed by the Labour Court in this regard and W.P.No.25234 of 2017 is also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm ) 5 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017
7. In the result both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
07-04-2025 RAP Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm ) 6 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017 To
1.The General Manager Florind Shoes Pvt Ltd, H.C.Road, Solur Village, Alangkuppam Post, (Via), Sanakuppam
2.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Vellore https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm ) 7 WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017 M.DHANDAPANI J.
RAP WP Nos. 25233 & 25234 of 2017 07-04-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:33:25 pm )