His is a case that could serve as a case study for law students interested in labour law jurisprudence and be cited by others as a classic example of how mighty managements could treat their workers. A 72-year-old man, M. Rajendran of Madurai, has been fighting a legal battle, but in vain, for the last 32 years, seeking his terminal benefits and back wages.

Mr. Rajendran was appointed as Head Clerk in Arul Anandar College, a government-aided institution, at Karumathur near here on August 1, 1970. Later he was promoted as Selection Grade Head Clerk, and got dismissed from service on June 25, 1982 after being found guilty in an ex-parte domestic enquiry into certain charges levelled against him.

Immediately, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer concerned. But the government official refused to refer the issue to the Labour Court in view of objections raised by the college management on the ground that it was an institution run by the minority community and therefore not amenable to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The employee filed a writ petition in the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court in Chennai against the Labour Officer’s decision and succeeded in the case.

But the management went in appeal, and lost the case as a Division Bench of the High Court ruled that the dismissed employee was entitled to seek remedy under the ID Act. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on October 4, 1989, and the management raised the issue of maintainability of the case once again.

When the Labour Court rejected the contention, the college challenged the decision before a single judge of the High Court and then before a Division Bench which concurred with the Labour Court’s decision on February 17, 1992.

Even after that, the college did not conduct the main case before the lower court. Instead, it raised ancillary issues and dragged the proceedings for years together. At one stage, it claimed that the records of its domestic enquiry were missing and sought permission of the Labour Court to conduct a fresh enquiry. After grant of permission, it claimed to have traced the old records.

Condemning the attitude of the management, a Division Bench of the High Court imposed a cost of Rs 2,000 in 2004. Similarly, in 2006, Justice P. Jyothimani (since retired) of the High Court criticised the “dilatory tactics” adopted by the college and observed that it had “taken all steps in the guise of seeking legal defence only to make a mockery of the entire situation.” He directed the college to pay a cost of Rs 5,000 to the dismissed employee. The judge also directed the Labour Court to expedite the proceedings and complete them within three months. Yet, the Labour Court could pass final orders only on April 2, 2009, exonerating the employee from all charges. But the order was not complied with and hence the employee filed a writ petition in the High Court in 2009.

A year later, the management too filed a writ challenging the Labour Court’s award.

Disposing of both the writ petitions on October 31 this year, Justice R. Mahadevan agreed with the dismissed employee’s counsel S. Arunachalam that it was unfair on the part of the management to have dragged the case for decades. He also ordered that the terminal benefits and back wages should be disbursed within four weeks from the date of receipt of his judgement copy.

“I received a copy of the judgement on November 24 and the stipulated time period of four weeks expired yesterday. Yet, not a single rupee has been settled to me. My lawyer has filed a caveat and I am praying that the management should disburse the money without going in appeal and prolonging the issue for another 32 years,” Mr Rajendran said.