WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06.08.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 and WMP(MD)Nos.15739 and 15740 of 2024 1. The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Regional Office, Karaikudi, Represented through its General Manager. 2. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of SETC, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... Petitioners Vs. C.Mariappan ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Hon'ble Labour Court, Madurai pertaining to its proceedings in C.P No.61 of 2019 dated 05-03-2024 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Muthu Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 ORDER WMP(MD)No.15739 of 2024 filed to permit the petitioners to file single writ petition is allowed. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Labour Court, Madurai, pertaining to its proceedings in C.P No.61 of 2019 dated 05-03-2024 and quash the same. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/employee entered into the service of the petitioner Corporation as a Driver on daily wage basis in the year 1982. He was regularised in the year 1984, promoted as Senior Driver in the year 1988 and promoted as Selection Grade Driver in the year 1996. He was further promoted as Driving Instructor in 2017. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2017 and retired from service on that date. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was fixed in the basic pay of Rs.16,140/- + Rs.4,300/- grade pay. When the petitioner was in service, there was a settlement entered by the petitioner Corporation in respect of wages and service condition which is valid for three years and thereby the respondent was paid wages and other benefits as per the settlement entered on 22.01.2011 with the effect from Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 01.09.2010 and the same was communicated by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour. However, the petitioner failed to implement the government order in G.O(Ms)No.61, Transport Department dated 30.04.2015 on the basis of 12(3) settlement. For non fixation of the basic pay and grade pay in terms of the above settlement, the respondent filed a computation petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was allowed in his favour. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even on a bare perusal of the computation petition filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, makes it clear that the respondent did not made any claim before the authorities on the basis of the pre-existing rights. His entire claim was that 12(3) settlement benefit was not extended to the respondent thereby, he filed a petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a petition is not maintainable before the authority and the authority can adjudicate only in respect of the pre- existing right. If the pre-existing right of the clam is established before the authority, then the authority has power to direct the petitioners corporation to pay the benefit which was admitted. However, without considering the Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 same, on the basis of the order passed by this court in the writ proceedings, the benefit was extended to the respondent which is impermissible one. On that score alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that already the claim petition is filed before the Labour and the same is pending. 6. Perusal of the computation petition filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act shows that the respondent did not made any claim before the authorities on the basis of the pre-existing rights. His entire claim was that 12(3) settlement benefit was not extended to the respondent and hence he filed a petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a petition is not maintainable before the authority and the authority can adjudicate only in respect of the pre- existing right. If the pre-existing right of the clam is established before the authority, then the authority has power to direct the petitioners corporation to pay the benefit which was admitted. However, without considering the same, on the basis of the order passed by this court in the writ proceedings, the benefit was extended to the respondent which is impermissible one. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06.08.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala To The Judge, Labour Court, Madurai. Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18528 of 2024 M.DHANDAPANI, J. bala ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.18528 of 2024 DATED : 06.08.2026 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis