Chennai: Declining to accept the attitude of the management of Hari & Co in Thoothukudi district, in seeing the pulse of the judge and taking time and seeking to withdraw the petition, the Madras high court has imposed a cost of Rs 2,500, payable by the management to each of the 42 employees who have not settled their matter relating to minimum wages with the management.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan also deprecated the act of the counsel, who appeared for the management, seeking withdrawal of the matter instead of assisting the court. “A lawyer must understand that he/she is here to assist the court and only based on the assistance given by them, the court can render justice”, the judge added while dismissing the petitions from the management relating to minimum wages claimed by the employees.
The judge also made it clear that if the management is unable to pay the costs imposed by this court within 30 days, any of their properties or the personal properties of the official concerned may be attached for the payment of the same. The judge said this matter was presented when he was on the Madurai bench regarding one employee and later the number got increased to 42 and as the company was willing to settle the matter it was referred to the National Lok Adalat (NLA). The cases didn’t progress at the NLA and high court took up the matter at Chennai. However, the attitude of the counsel during the hearings by sending junior counsel and seeking adjournments is not acceptable to the court and the judgment was reserved.
The judge said, “The attitude of the management in seeing the pulse of the judge and taking time and seeking to withdraw the petitions cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner/ management ought to have stated that he has got paramount duty to the court than to his client and should have requested to pass orders on the merits. Instead of doing so, the act of the counsel seeking withdrawal of the matter is not appreciated and the act is deprecated. For the act of the management in trying to withdraw the matter after the matter has been addressed in full, this court imposes costs”.
