Partly allowed

C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu v. the Management of Indian Drugs

Madras HC13 Feb 2013WP/21246/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Labour Court's award denying regularisation to canteen workers, as the post was non-existent due to the sick status of the industry. It partly allowed the management's appeal against a reinstatement order, holding that while service completion was proven, reinstatement into a non-existent post in a sick industry was untenable, awarding only compe

What did the court decide?

The management (IDPL) was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the workman within eight weeks.

C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu Vs the Management… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.Nos.21246 of 2008,
21770 of 2011 and
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
1.C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu
2.V.Ramalingam
3.G.Selvaraj
4.C.Arumugam ... Petitioners in
W.P.No.21246/2008
M/s.Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited
Represented by its General Manager In Charge
Mr.G.Atchitanand Reddy, Nandambakkam,
Chennai -89. ...Petitioner in
W.P.No.21770/2011
Vs.
1.The Management of Indian Drugs
and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
Nandambakkam,
Chennai -88.
2.Principal Labour Court,
Chennai. ...Respondents in
W.P.No.21246/2008
1.C.Srinivasalu
2.The Presiding Officer,
First Additional Labour Court,
Chennai. ... Respondents in
W.P.No.21770/2011

¶6

W.P.No.21246 of 2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records in respect of the award passed by the Principle Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.538/1997 dated 18.09.2007 and quash the same, consequently direct the first respondent to regularise the petitioners service and to give salary and benefit as given to the permanent worker.

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

W.P.No.21770 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in connection with the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.211 of 2008 and to quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rajagopal in W.P.No.21246/2008

¶10

Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi in W.P.No.21770/2011

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R1 in W.P.No.21246/2008

¶12

Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan for R1 in W.P.No.21770/2011

¶13

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶14

Both writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide his order dated 02.08.2012.

¶15

In W.P.No.21246 of 2008, the petitioners challenge the Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No.538 of 1997 dated 18.09.2007. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court declined to answer the reference in favour of the workmen and rejected the industrial dispute raised by them, by holding that the 32 employees mentioned in the reference were not entitled to be made permanent. The Trade union which raised the dispute did not file any writ petition. On the other hand, the 32 employees named in the order of reference issued by the State Government in G.O.(D)No.579, Labour and Employment Department dated 11.07.1997 have filed the writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 29.08.2008.

¶16

Pending W.P.No.21246 of 2008, the first petitioner viz., C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu, S/o.Chinnappan raised a dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai on the ground that he has been orally terminated from service on 18.08.2004. On a failure report being furnished by the Conciliation Officer, the said petitioner filed a claim statement before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The said claim statement was taken on file as I.D.No.211 of 2008 and notice was issued to the Management. The Management filed a counter statement before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the Management, one V.K.Vasan was examined as M.W.1. On the side of the workman, two documents viz., Award passed in the earlier I.D.No.538 of 1997 as well as the failure report given by the Conciliation Officer were filed and marked as Exs.W1 and W2.

¶19

The labour Court, on an analysis of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the earlier Award only negatived the question of regularisation, whereas, there is a finding by the Principal Labour Court that the workman had worked for more than 240 days and therefore, in the absence of the Management not complying with the condition precedent for retrenchment of the workman as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with 25% of back wages.

¶20

As against the Award dated 19.04.2011, the Management viz., Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Nandambakkam, Chennai has filed W.P.No.21770 of 2011. This writ petition was admitted on 23.09.2011 and in the application for interim stay, only notice was ordered.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the Workman and the Management as the case may be.

¶22

The Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (for short IDPL) had a factory at Nandambakkam and it was running a statutory canteen in its factory. It was claimed by the workmen through their Union namely Desiya Pothu Thozhilar Orunginaippu with Registration No.CPT-1150 that the canteen had 40 workers, who have been working for number of years starting from 1983 onwards. The Union raised a dispute claiming that these workmen have been working for more than 240 days continuously and the Management had not confirmed their services. As the dispute raised before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Conciliation I did not materialize into any settlement, a failure report was sent to the State Government.

¶23

The State Government by virtue of power under Section 10 (1)(c) of the I.D.Act issued G.O.(D).No.579, Labour and Employment Department, dated 11.07.1997, referring the dispute relating to 32 workers and directed the Principal Labour Court to consider the question as to whether the demand of the Trade Union for regularisation of the 32 canteen employees was justified. In the Annexure A to the GO, the names of 32 workers were set out. Sl.No.3 relates to C.Srinivasan, who is the first petitioner in the first writ petition and also the first respondent in the second writ petition. The said reference was registered as I.D.No.538 of 1997 by the Labour Court and notice was issued to both sides.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

Before the Labour Court, the General Secretary of the Union was examined as W.W.1 and on their side, 6 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W6. On the side of the Management, one V.K.Vasan was examined as M.W.1 and on their side 7 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M7.

¶26

Before the Labour Court, the Workmen filed I.A.No.127 of 2001 for production of documents but the documents were not produced by the Management on the ground that the workmen were engaged on casual 'off and on basis' and were paid out of contingencies and no record of their attendance was kept by the Management. M.W.1, Senior Personnel Executive of the Management, during cross examination had stated that no records or documents was issued to the workmen either by them or by the Canteen Committee and hence, he could not confirm the length of service of the workmen. The Labour Court took adverse inference on the stand taken by the Management and held that it has no hesitation to hold that the workmen were working for more than 240 days preceding the date of raising the dispute. But with reference to the claim for permanency, the Labour Court held that even in respect of IDPL Limited, the Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in 2007 (1) SCC 408 has held that the daily wage employee has no right to seek regularisation and regularization can be done only in accordance with the rules and not de hors the Rules. Even W.W.1. had admitted that the workmen are only casual employees. M.W.1 in his evidence had stated the company has become a sick company and it has been referred for framing of a Scheme before the BIFR. It was also admitted that only 30 employees were kept in the plant for maintenance apart from the supervisory personnel. Since the company has become sick company and all the workers have gone out on Voluntary Retirement Scheme and other methods, the question of granting them permanency will not arise.

¶27

The Labour Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in IDPL case (cited supra) and extracted the following passage from the said judgment:-

¶28

"The distinction between a temporary employee and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employee has no right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation (unless he is dismissed or removed after an inquiry, or his service is terminated due to some other valid reason earlier). As regards a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no right to the post at all. Hence, it follows that no direction can be passed in the case of any temporary employee

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

that he should be continued till the age of superannuation.

¶31

Similarly, no direction can be given that a dailywage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee. If an employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled to any scale of pay."

¶32

In the light of these findings, the Labour Court held that the workmen, whose names are mentioned in the reference are not entitled to be made permanent and the plea raised by the workmen was rejected. As noted already, the Trade Union which raised the dispute did not challenge the Award. On the other hand, four of the workmen whose names are mentioned in the Annexure has filed the writ petition challenging the Award.

¶33

It was the contention of the workmen that once the Labour Court had drawn adverse inference for non- production of the records and a finding was rendered that they had worked for more than 240 days preceding the order of reference, the Labour Court should have granted regularisation. It is not clear as to how such a contention is maintainable, especially, when the Labour Court found that the plant at Nandambakkam was not functioning and it is having only 30 workers along with supervisory staff and the company was referred to BIFR as it had become sick company. Admittedly, the workmen were working only in the statutory canteen and when the plant itself is not functioning, the question of the workmen being reinstated to a non-existent canteen does not arise. This Court do not find any case to interfere with the impugned Award in I.D.No.538 of 1997 dated 18.09.2007. Hence, W.P.No.21246 of 2008 will stand dismissed.

¶34

This takes to the next writ petition filed by the Management of IDPL in W.P.No.21770 of 2011, challenging the Award in I.D.NO.211 of 2008 dated 19.04.2011 passed by the First Additional Labour Court, wherein and by which, the contesting first respondent was directed to be reinstated with 25% of the backwages and with continuity of service. The ground raised by the Management was that the workman was only a casual labour. In the light of the earlier Award passed by the Labour Court declining to grant the relief of regularisation, the finding given by the Labour Court will operate as res judicata and therefore, the workman cannot set up a new plea for reinstatement. The findings recorded by the Labour Court will also operate as res judicata against the claim raised by the first respondent workman.

¶35

However, Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that the findings rendered in the earlier Award was in favour of the workman. In so far as the

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

finding relates to the workman having completed 240 days of service, the management cannot go behind the same. When once it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that even in such case of casual employment, the workman who had completed 240 days of service and had not been terminated in the manner known to law, the normal relief of reinstatement should have been ordered. The Labour Court has correctly granted such relief.

¶38

Though the contention raised by the learned counsel for the workman with reference to the finding of fact regarding 240 days of service rendered by the workman is accepted valid, on the other findings rendered by the Labour Court viz., the majority of the workmen have gone on VRS and only 30 workers were kept for maintenance of the plant; the company has become sick and also the fact that the workman belong to the category of 32 workers, who are working in the statutory canteen on casual employment, the Labour Court could not have granted re-instatement to a non existent post.

¶39

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248, wherein the Supreme Court held that infraction of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act may make a termination invalid and in normal circumstances, the relief of reinstatement and backwages must be ordered. But while doing so, it must be taken into account several factors like the manner and method of selection, nature of appointment (ad hoc, daily wages, temporary, permanent etc.) period of service, delay in raising industrial dispute etc., must also be taken into account.

¶40

Even assuming that the workman was employed for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months, it did not automatically result in the workman getting the relief of reinstatement with back wages as held by the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353 [Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C.Joshi]. In that case, the Court held that since appointments were not made in terms of the statutory rules, compensation alone was directed to be paid. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748 [M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban], wherein the Supreme Court held that relief of reinstatement cannot be automatically granted and compensation was directed to be paid.

¶41

In the light of the same, the impugned Award in I.D.No.211 of 2008 dated 19.04.2011 cannot be upheld in its entirety. As it is found that the workman was only a casual worker and that the factory has been referred to as sick industry and the regular workmen have left service on VRS and there being no canteen running in the establishment, the workman cannot be reinstated in service. He is only entitled for compensation of

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement. The petitioner viz., IDPL is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the first respondent workman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

In the result, W.P.No.21246 of 2008 stands dismissed. W.P.No.21770 of 2011 stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Asst. Registrar

¶47

//true copy//
Sub Asst.Registrar
svki
To
1.Principal Labour Court,
Chennai.
2.The Presiding Officer,
First Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
+1 C.C. to Mr.D.Rajagopal Advocate SR.No.8799
+1 C.C. to Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan Advocate SR.No.8886

¶48

+2 C.C. to Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi Advocate SR.No.8837, 8838

¶49

W.P.Nos.21246 of 2008 and 21770 of 2011 SSI(CO} VS 27.02.2013

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu v. the Management of Indian Drugs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu v. the Management of Indian Drugs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary Vs the State of Tamilnadu

V.Vinoth Vs the Director General of Police

S.Gandhi, Vs the Director of School

M/S.Advanced Biotech Products Vs the Managing Director

P.Santhi Vs the Commissioner

A.Annadurai, Vs the Tahsildar