WA/236/2026 of The Management Vs A. Mahalakshmi on 9 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.) The appeal has been filed by the Society, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, directing the Management to reinstate the respondent in service with full back-wages.

2. The respondent herein is the Assistant Secretary employed by the appellant- Society. Disciplinary action was initiated against her by the then President of the Society for the alleged wilful negligence and delay in disbursing loans to its members. The disciplinary proceedings ended in dismissal of the respondent from service. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court in I.D..No.15 of 2018 and the Labour Court passed an award dated 01.04.2022, ordering her reinstatement with back-wages.

3. Being aggrieved, the Society has preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.28881 of 2022. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 07.08.2024 with the following observations:- “6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent even while the disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent, the petitioner has described the respondent as Assistant Secretary and she has been accommodated in the petitioner Society.

Though for any extraneous reasons, the post of Assistant Secretary is not available and the said post cannot be authenticated by the petitioner's Society, it is for the petitioner to write to the appropriate authority either to ratify the said post or to accommodate the respondent elsewhere.

7. So far as the relief of reinstatement is concerned, the petitioner is directed to take back the respondent as how she was working with the petitioner Society before her termination. The records would show that the respondent has functioned as Assistant Secretary and she has been referred so in all the charge memos etc. The reason for terminating the respondent is in view of the disciplinary proceedings taken against her for the alleged absence and not on the allegation that the respondent has been promoted to the post of Assistant Secretary due to any of the role played by her in getting promotion to the said post. In such case, that issue cannot be addressed before this Court or in other words, the position that existed before the respondent's termination will stand good and will not get altered due to the pending litigation before the Labour Court.

8. Hence, I feel that this Writ Petition can be disposed by confirming the award of the Labour Court and by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent. With regard to the availability of the post of Assistant Secretary is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to continue whatever correspondence that was made in this regard before the termination of the respondent. It is to be noted that the petitioner has already sent a representation to the Joint Registrar in this regard. In such case, the respondent is also at liberty to send representation and see that the problem pertains to the availability of the post is resolved. It is reiterated that the above issue will not stand in the way of reinstating the respondent to the position where she was before the termination.”

4. Not being satisfied with the above said order, the appellant-Management preferred the review petition, which also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed. Pending the appeal, it is stated that the respondent has already been reinstated in service and a substantial portion of the back-wages has been paid.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that in view of the compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, nothing survives in this appeal. The appeal though has been listed on several occasions, we find from the notes paper that there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant.

6. On perusing the order of the Labour Court and the order passed in the writ petition which is now the subject matter of this appeal, we find that the reasoning stated by the learned Single Judge in confirming the order of the Labour Court, as extracted above, is in consonance with the law and the evidence adduced. Therefore, we find no merit in the intra-court appeal. Hence, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) (E.MANOHARAN,J.) 09.09.2026 ari Index:yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no

Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND E.MANOHARAN,J. ari W.A.No.236 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.2102 of 2026 09.09.2026