The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The Court upheld the reinstatement of a workman who was orally terminated without complying with statutory provisions, holding the finding on continuity of service was not perverse.
Writ petition dismissed; findings rendered by the Labour Court confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Writ Petition No.20307 of 2004
& WPMP No.24436 of 2004
The Management,
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
Cuddalore ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Kanayiram
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore ... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in impugned award dated 28.05.2003 made in I.D.No.5 of 1998 on the file of the second respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr. Arockiaraj For Respondents : Mr. S.Saravanakumar, for R-1, O R D E R
The Labour Court has passed an award setting-aside the order of termination dated 09.02.1994 and reinstating the workman along with the continuity of service and 50% of back-wages. This order is under challenge by the Management, in this writ petition.
Brief facts:-
before the Conciliation Officer and as the conciliation failed, a failure report was filed by the Conciliation Officer.
2.1. According to the case of the Management, the workman was purely engaged on temporary basis and the tenure would end at the completion of the project. In other words, the engagement was based on project basis and once the project concludes, the workman has no right to ask for continuance in the employment. According to the Management, the workman was engaged on NMR basis, on and from 25.03.1985, as Watchman. After the project was over, he was not employed further. He is only discharged from service and not dismissed from service. Only for the purpose of Thiruvannainallur Project, he was assigned duty and after the end of that project, he was discharged from service on 28.02.1991. Therefore, in the absence of proof to show that in the period of two years, the workman was engaged for 480 days continuously, the case of the workman will not stand scrutiny to law. Therefore, the order of disengagement / order of discharge passed by the Management has to be upheld.
(i) Whether the oral termination dated 09.02.1994 is valid?
(ii) Whether the workman has to be reinstated along with continuity of service and back-wages?
(i) The appointment of the workman was on temporary basis for a water supply scheme and thereafter, the workman was discharged on 28.02.1991.
(ii) There is no evidence to show that the workman was continuously working from 01.04.1993 and terminated on 09.02.1994.
(iii) The decision reported in 2001 (1) LLJ 596 (Hindustan Machine Tools and others v. M.Rangareddy and others) does not apply to the case of the workman.
“This Court, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (supra) considered the question of regularisation of ad hoc, work-charged employees and casual labour. Therein this Court observed: " So far as the work charged employees and casual labour are concerned the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his bens to the job . In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Govt. of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.90 referred hereinbefore) both in relation to workcharged employees as well as casual labour." “
6.1. From the dictum laid down, it is clear that the case of the workman is squarely covered by the above decision.
7.1. This order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.726 to 743 of 2007. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed and the writ appeal has been
dismissed with modification only in respect of the back-wages payable.
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srk To
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore.
+2cc to Mr.M.Arokiaraj, Advocate sr.72293 +1cc to M/S.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate Sr.71953
Writ Petition No.20307 of 2004 & WPMP No.24436 of 2004 srg 15/02/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the oral termination of the workman was valid without following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement, continuity of service, and back-wages despite the Management's claim of temporary employment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Machine Tools and others v. M.Rangareddy and othersReferred¶23
2001 (1) LLJ 596 (Hindustan Machine Tools and others v. M.Rangareddy and others)
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors.Referred¶26
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors.
H.P.Singh v. Reserve Bank of IndiaRelied on¶32
1985 (52) FLR 494 (H.P.Singh v. Reserve Bank of India)
The Management, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Cuddalore
Kanayiram
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore
S. VIMALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
