W.P.No.17751 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.17751 of 2010 R.Alagirisamy ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. 2. The Management, Aurofood (P) Ltd., Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District – 605 111. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the 1st respondent, quash the award passed by the 1st respondent Labour court dated 26.04.2010 in I.D.No.13 of 2003 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits till the date of superannuation of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.S.D.Thirumavalavan, for R2 R1 – Court Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17751 of 2010 ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the award passed by the 1st respondent dated 26.04.2010 made in I.D.No.13 of 2003 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to pay full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits in favour of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner/workman is that he joined the services of the 2nd respondent management as a driver on 22.06.1973 and had been working for more than 29 years. Whileso, the petitioner was retrenched from the service of the management with effect from 18.04.2002, against which, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.13 of 2003 before the 1st respondent, who in turn dismissed the said dispute, vide impugned award dated 26.04.2010, without considering any of the above said facts. Challenging the same, the present Writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, instead of retrenching one Sitaraman, who joined the services of the 2nd respondent management after the petitioner, retrenching the petitioner who was a Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17751 of 2010 Senior is wholly unsustainable and the Labour Court had miserably failed to consider the said fact and had mechanically dismissed the dispute raised by the petitioner which cannot be acceded to. However, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation and thereby, there is no question of ordering reinstatement. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders of this Court directing the 2nd respondent management to pay compensation in favour of the petitioner/workman. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-management submitted that the tribunal, after careful consideration of the fact that the petitioner/workman had already received a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards retrenchment compensation, had dismissed the dispute raised by the petitioner, vide impugned award, which need not be interfered with and accordingly prayed for dismissal of this Writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17751 of 2010 6. Admittedly, as against the illegal retrenchment, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the same was dismissed, vide present impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had already received the retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that, one Sitaraman who joined the services of the 2nd respondent management after the petitioner, was not retrenched and instead the petitioner who was a Senior alone was retrenched is concerned, this Court is of the view that the said claim of the petitioner is not acceptable in the light of the fact that he had already received the retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and rightly dismissed the industrial dispute, vide the present impugned award and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 7. However, considering the fact that the petitioner-workman had already reached the age of superannuation and that he had already received a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards retrenchment compensation, in order to strike balance in between the parties, this Court directs the 2nd respondent - management to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17751 of 2010 thousand only) as full quit compensation in favour of the petitioner- workman within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 12.02.2025 skt Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No To: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17751 of 2010 M.DHANDAPANI, J. skt W.P.No.17751 of 2010 12.02.2025 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis