The Madurai Bench dismissed the appeal against an order upholding a Labour Court award reinstating workmen terminated without complying with Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that the applicant could not rely on illegal appointment to bypass statutory reinstatement mandates.
No relief. H.W.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2014 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
Writ Appeal (MD) No.376 of 2014 against WP(MD).13751 of 2013
The management/Special Officer, R.S.736, Paramakudi Agricultural Producers' Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Ramanathapuram Main Road, Paramakudi Post, Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Buildings, Melur Road, Madurai 625 020.
2.K.Muthuganesan ... Respondents/Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.08.2013 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.13751 2013 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in WP(MD). 13751/ 2013 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to I.D.No.2/2010; Quash the order dated 08.02.2011 as unsustainable under law, as well as on merits of the matter.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J .)
The Paramakudi Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited has come up with the above writ appeal challenging an order of the learned Judge, upholding the award of the Labour Court.
2.Heard Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3.The second respondent herein, along with six other persons, who were employed on daily wages in the appellant society, raised an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ industrial dispute on the ground that their services have been terminated without following the statutory mandate. By a common award, dated 08.02.2011 passed in I.D.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2010, the Labour Court,
2
Madurai directed the reinstatement of all the workmen, with a further direction that they shall be continued till they are regularly selected by following Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
4.Aggrieved by the award passed in respect of the second respondent herein, in I.D.No.2 of 2010, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13751 of 2013. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, primarily on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, the appellant has come up with the above appeal.
5.The fact that the second respondent was appointed on daily wage basis as a salesman in the appellant society from 31.01.2000 and that his last drawn pay was Rs.650/- is not disputed. The fact that the services of the second respondent were dispensed with on 01.08.2003 is also not disputed. In other words, the appellant admits that the second respondent was engaged continuously for a period of three years and six months. The appellant also does not dispute the fact that the services of the second respondent were terminated without following the statutory provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.In the light of all these facts, the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement cannot be found fault with. The award actually was passed on 08.02.2010 and the appellant came up with the writ petition only in the year 2013. Therefore, without going into the merits, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
7.Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the very appointment of the second respondent was contrary to law and that therefore, the question of following the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not arise. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the appellant properly explained the reasons as to why there was some delay in approaching the High Court against the award of the Labour Court. According to the appellant, the award was not brought to the notice of the Special Officer till such time when the second respondent moved a writ petition for enforcement of the award. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches was unjustified.
8.It is true that in a writ petition, delay and laches cannot be a sole ground for its determination, unless vested rights have been created in favour of the contesting respondents. Therefore, to the extent that the writ petition had been dismissed only on the ground of delay, the grievance of the appellant appears to be justified.
9.But unfortunately, on the facts of the case, the award of the Labour Court cannot be impeached on any legal tenable grounds. Once it is admitted that the second respondent is a workman category employee and that he was continuously in employment for a period of 3 ½ years, it follows as a corollary that mandate of Section 25(f) ought to have been followed. Admittedly, such a mandate was not followed.
10.The fact that the appointment of the second respondent was in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ violation of the law, cannot give a licence to the appellant to give a go-bye to the mandate of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, we
3
find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Writs) \True copy\ Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Buildings, Melur Road, Madurai 625 020. +1 CC to the Spl.Govt.Pleader Sr.No.14916 sms
Writ Appeal (MD) No.376 of 2014 07.03.2014
NA/26/03/2014/P3/3C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the Labour Court's award reinstating a workman who was terminated without following Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether dismissal of the underlying writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches was justified when vested rights had been created.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Paramakudi Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court
K. Muthuganesan
V. Ramasubramanian
V.M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court