2019 (12) TMI 1471 - HC - Central Excise

Non-payment of leave salary - financial crises - Settlement of surrender leave salary for 156 days from 2011 to 2018 - HELD THAT - An identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD) No.210 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 04.09.2019 2019 (9) TMI 1512 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had upheld the view of the learned Single Judge against which the writ petition came to be filed and also rejected the Corporation plea that the employee had not claimed the encashment of the surrender leave within the stipulated time. Although the petitioner has made a representation dated 25.11.2019, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation, enclosing a copy of this order, seeking for settlement of his surrendered leave salary and on receipt of the such representation, the respondents herein shall consider the same and disburse the eligible leave salary through four equated monthly installments in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Claim for surrender leave salary pending citing financial crises, Duty of statutory authority to consider employee's representation, Interpretation of circular regarding surrender leave, Applicability of settlement under Industrial Dispute Act, Judicial precedent on similar cases, Entitlement to claim salary for surrendered leave.

Claim for Surrender Leave Salary Pending Citing Financial Crises:
The petitioner claimed surrender leave salary for 156 days from 2011 to 2018, but it was kept pending by the respondent due to financial crises. The court noted that the ends of justice could be secured if the representation is disposed of within stipulated time, emphasizing the duty of the authorities to consider such representations promptly to avoid dereliction of duties.

Duty of Statutory Authority to Consider Employee's Representation:
The court highlighted that when a representation is made to a statutory authority for redressal, the authority must consider it on its merits and pass appropriate orders promptly instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Failure to act on such representations would amount to dereliction of duties, justifying the court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the authority to consider the representation within a specified time frame.

Interpretation of Circular Regarding Surrender Leave:
An issue arose regarding the interpretation of a circular related to surrendering earned leave. The court referred to a case where the Corporation contended that the circular did not apply to retired employees for claims based on leave surrendered during their service. The court considered the circular and the Corporation's financial crisis plea, ultimately allowing the writ petition based on factual considerations and past precedents.

Applicability of Settlement Under Industrial Dispute Act:
The court discussed the applicability of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act concerning surrendering and encashing earned leave. The Corporation argued that the settlement did not apply to the petitioner due to financial crises. However, the court considered the circumstances, including the circular and the Corporation's past actions, to rule in favor of the employee's entitlement to claim salary for surrendered leave.

Judicial Precedent on Similar Cases:
Referring to a Division Bench judgment in a related case, the court upheld the view that the Corporation's financial crisis plea did not justify denying the employee's claim for surrender leave salary. The court emphasized the importance of considering the factual position and past actions of the Corporation in determining the employee's entitlement to the claimed salary.

Entitlement to Claim Salary for Surrendered Leave:
Based on the considerations of past precedents, the court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to claim salary for the surrendered leave. The court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation for settlement of the leave salary, with the respondents instructed to disburse the eligible amount in four installments in line with the Division Bench judgment, ensuring the first installment is disbursed within four weeks of receiving the fresh representation.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the various issues involved and the court's detailed considerations in addressing each aspect of the case.