Workers eligible to claim wages even if dismissal order is withdrawn, says High Court

Even if an organisation withdraws its dismissal order of workers, they are entitled for claiming wages during the period when the order was in force, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Hearing a writ petition on imposition of selective lockouts by management of a Coimbatore-based firm vis-à-vis eligibility for claim of wages by workers, the court held that the Labour Court, Coimbatore that deliberated the issue “was right in computing wages in favour of workmen”.

If the contention Messrs Alpha Helical Pumps was accepted, then it would defeat the very purpose of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled in his order. The Labour Court took note of the fact that the management withdrew its July 15, 2004, order dismissing the workers. It was in that view that the labour court held that withdrawal of dismissal order did not disentitle workmen from claiming wages for period of “illegal” dismissal.

The petitioner contended that dismissal of workmen was preceded by regular domestic enquiry and they were dismissed for “grave” act of misconduct. Hence, they were not eligible for wages. It was in welfare of other workers, a partial lockout was declared on August 6, 2002. The said power to declare partial lockout was very much available to the management under the Act.

The labour court placed reliance on judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal in Associated Cement Companies vs workmen reported in 1953 II LLJ 369. In that case, the tribunal opined that proceedings before it were deemed to have commenced by legal fiction created under Section 20(3). It also opined that it was not complete until order of reference was actually received by it.

The labour court held that workmen need not get really dismissed or penalty adjudicated by any court. Since the dismissal order itself had become void ab initio , workmen were entitled to claim wages.

The petitioner submitted that inasmuch as they were not even aware of order of reference, it could not be said that by a legal fiction, an obligation was created on management.

The judge held that the fact that summons were received from the labour court subsequent to the dismissal and that the petitioner was not aware of pendency of dispute could not hold water because the management had participated in conciliation proceedings.

Since no case was made out to interfere with impugned order of the labour court, the writ petition stood dismissed, the Judge said.

COMMENT NOW