Judgment:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in C.P.No.107/1989 dated 19.11.2003.
O R D E R
1. The State of Tamil Nadu has approached this Court by invoking the equitable writ jurisdiction of this Court, to challenge the Award passed by the learned I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in awarding a sum of Rs.2,83,674.80 (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-three thousand Six hundred and Seventy-four and eighty paise only) to the workman under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The Respondent No.4 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 9.5.1956. The services of the 4th Respondent were ordered to be terminated on 22.10.1972 and the order of termination was confirmed on 27.9.1975, in appeal.
3. The Respondent No.4, challenged the order of his termination by filing a civil suit. The suit was decreed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on 24.3.1981 and a declaratory decree was passed in favour of the 4th Respondent/workman holding the order of termination to be void, with declaration that the Respondent No.4 is deemed to have continued in service with all consequential benefits.
4. It is not in dispute that the decree of the Civil Court has attained finality.
5. The Respondent No.4, on account of non-payment of consequential benefits, under the Civil Court decree, approached the Labour Court, under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. The learned I Additional Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, held that there is an enforceable judgment and decree in favour of the Respondent No.4, the benefits under which could be commuted in terms of money.
7. On computing the salary payable to the Respondent No.4, from the date of termination till passing of decree, the learned Labour Court allowed the claim petition filed by the Respondent No.4 and passed an award for Rs.2,83,674.80 (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-three thousand Six hundred and Seventy-four and eighty paise only) in favour of the Respondent No.4.
8. The Award passed by the learned I Additional Labour Court, is challenged on the ground that the suit against the dismissal of a Government Employee was not maintainable.
9. This contention is patently misconceived in view of the settled law, the suit for declaration challenging the order of dismissal of the Government Employee is competent before the Civil Court. It is also well settled that in the case of dismissal of a Government Employee, the Civil Court can issue declaration that the order of dismissal is void and that the plaintiff is deemed to continue in service.
10. The second ground of challenge is that the Civil Court decree is nullity in the eye of law. This contention, again is misconceived. The decree of Civil Court is valid and enforceable as the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to declare the dismissal of the Government employee to be void. It is not disputed that benefit under the Civil Court decree can be claimed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act.
No merit. Dismissed.
No costs.
If, in pursuance to interim order, any amount has been deposited by the State, it shall be open to the Respondent No.4, to withdraw the same.