W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9435, 9436, 18056 & 18086 of 2022 The Management, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., Rep. by its Project Officer, Nillakottai Industrial Complex, Pallapatty, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul. ...Petitioner in both cases vs. R.Murugan ...Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13282 of 2022 P.Periyamayan ...Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13283 of 2022 Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli to transpose of the Execution Petition in E.P.Nos.11 and 12 of 2013 in I.D.Nos.32 and 33 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli as non-executable and out of jurisdiction and consequentially direct the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli to set aside the attachment order and the notice of sale issued in respect of the property owned by the petitioner. Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 In both cases, For Petitioner : Mr.R.Baskaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram For Respondents : Mr.Ajay Ghose for Mr.G.M.Xavier C O M M O N O R D E R These writ petitions were filed to transpose of the Execution Petitions in E.P.Nos.11 and 12 of 2013 in I.D.Nos.32 and 33 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli as non- executable and out of jurisdiction and consequentially direct the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli to set aside the attachment order and the notice of sale issued in respect of the property owned by the petitioner. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he is only concerned with regard to the filing of E.P.Nos.11 and 12 of 2013 in I.D.Nos.32 and 33 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, wherein they sought the prayer as follows. Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order to attach the above mentioned property of the respondent / JD for realization of the award amount under Order 21, Rule 54 & 66 of CPC and award cost of this petition." The learned senior counsel referred to the common award passed in I.D.Nos.32 and 33 of 2002 and the relevant portion of the award is as follows. "While considering the back wages, the petitioners had not pleaded that they were not in gainful employment during the period of non-employment. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief to back wages. In this view, the petitioners are entitled for reinstatement for continuity of service without back wages. In the result, the Industrial Dispute Nos.32/2002 and 33/2002 are partly allowed by setting aside the Order of Oral Termination passed by the respondent on 07.02.2001 and thereby the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners into service with continuity of service without back wages." By referring the above portion, the learned senior counsel would submit that, in the award, no amount has been crystallized and the award was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 passed only to reinstate the respondents herein without any back wages. Therefore, liability to pay any amount would not arise in terms of the award and so, the question of attachment will not arise. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the petitions would fairly submit that in the present case, the attachment was sought for only with regard to the non-compliance of the award dated 13.09.2012 and the respondents are entitled to salary for the period between the date of award and the date of reinstatement. According to him, only the said aspect has been referred to in Execution Petitions. Therefore, he would submit that the respondents herein would restrict the prayer in the Execution Petitions to the extent that any amount accrued from the date of award until the date of reinstatement of respondents by the petitioner Management. 4. In reply, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if that is the case, the same may be recorded and orders may be passed. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides, the prayer in the Execution Petition Nos.11 and 12 of 2013 filed for attachment of properties for the release of the award amount would mean that the attachment of property is towards any amount due from the date of the award until the date of reinstatement by the petitioner Management as ordered by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in the Execution Petitions stands clarified and with regard to any further relief, both parties are at liberty to raise their contentions and workout the same before the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli in the Execution Petitions. The Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli is directed to consider both sides contention and thereafter, dispose the Execution Petitions within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 22.01.2025 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mbi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY , J. mbi W.P.(MD)Nos.13282 & 13283 of 2022 22.01.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis