N. RAJENDRAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed in W.P.No.10168 of 2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby rejecting the appellant's claim for Rs.16,02,000/- granted by the learned Labour Court in C.P.No.337 of 2007 on 25.02.2011.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the appellant Rajendiran was working under the second respondent/employer herein namely ''Sorrento Home''. He was an Account-in-charge since the year 1994; and initially, paid a monthly salary at Rs.5000/- vide salary certificate Ex.P1. From 01.01.2000, the appellant was promised a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. But, actually, cash payment of Rs.5000/- alone was paid per month. Further, he was promised to pay the difference of Rs.7000/- per month but the same was not paid. When the appellant insisted the payment of his arrears, the 2nd respondent/employer on 21.07.2006 gave an Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 to pay the arrears of salary Rs.7000/- and also promised to pay Rs.10,00,000/- in case the petitioner resigns his job or he was dismissed from service. In the meanwhile, due to the misunderstanding between the 2nd respondent/employer and his brother Raghu, the appellant stopped to attend the work and then filed the claim petition in C.P.No.337 of 2007 before the learned Labour Court, Chennai thereby claiming a sum of Rs.16,02,000/- towards arrears of salary and compensation. The 2nd respondent/employer filed counter and contested the claim. The learned Labour Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.16,02,000/- to the appellant by order dated 25.02.2011. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Labour Court, the 2nd respondent/employer herein filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.10168 of 2011. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties and based on records held that the Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 dated 21.07.2006 was not genuine and a fabricated document and allowed the Writ Petition and thereby quashed the impugned order passed in C.P.No.337 of 2007 dated 25.02.2011 by the learned Labour Court. Any how the appellant was permitted to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- which was deposited pursuant to the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge on 26.07.2013.

(3.) Now the appellant challenges the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10168 of 2011 dated 28.01.2016.