Allowed

Y-92, Manavalakurichy Primary v. C.Sathiyanesan

Madras HC26 Mar 2018WP(MD)/9212/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions filed by a co-operative society to quash an Inspector of Labour's order conferring permanency and a Labour Court award for reinstatement. The court held the Permanency Act does not apply to backdoor entrants in co-operative societies lacking proper appointment procedures, remitting the matter to the Labour Court.

What did the court decide?

Pursuant to the order dated August 24, 2015 by the Inspector of Labour, quashed. The Labour Court award is quashed and the matter remitted to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli for fresh decision within si

Y-92, Manavalakurichy Primary Vs C.Sathiyanesan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.9212 and 9246 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.7025 and 6999 of 2017

¶6

Y.92, Manavalakurichi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, rep. by its The President C.Krishnan S/o Chellaiya Vadakanpagam, Manavalakurichy Post, Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner in both petitions

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.C.Sathiyanesan 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents in WP(MD)No.9212 of 2017 1.C.Sathiyanesan

¶9

2.The Inspector of Labour, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents in W.P(MD)No.9246 of 2017

¶10

PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.9212 of 2017: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in award passed in I.D.No.15 of 2016 dated 27.06.2016 and quash the same. PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.9246 of 2017: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.398 of 2015, dated 24.08.2015 and quash the same.

¶11

In both petitions:For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arul (in both WPs) For Respondents : Mr.M.E.Ilango for R1 (in both WPs) R-2 Court in WP(MD)No.9212/2017 Mr.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader for R2 in W.P(MD)No.9246 of 2017

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Both the writ petitions have been filed by the Management of Co-operative Society questioning the award passed by the Inspector

¶14

¶15

of Labour conferring the status of permanency on the first respondent.

¶16

2.It is seen that the first respondent was not appointed by following proper procedure. He is obviously a back door entrant. There is nothing on record to show that the bye laws of the society in the matter of appointment were followed in this case. Therefore, in such circumstances, a Full Bench of this Court in Radha Krishnan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies reported in 2007 (5) CTC 369 has held that the Permanency Act of 1981 will not apply in the case of co-operative society.

¶17

3.The first respondent on the strength of the order passed by the Inspector of Labour conferring permanency on him raised I.D.No.15 of 2016 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli allowed the Industrial Dispute and directed his reinstatement. This Court sets aside the order passed by the Inspector of Labour. Therefore, the award impugned in W.P(MD) No.9246 of 2017 will also have to go automatically. But then the learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that even a causal workman is entitled to protection afforded in the I.D Act. Inasmuch as, the Labour Court has in this case allowed I.D.No.15 of 2016 more as the consequence of the order passed by the Inspector of Labour and since the order dated 24.08.2015 has been set aside in W.P(MD)No.9246 of 2017, the matter has to be remitted to the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. The award dated 27.06.2016 in I.D.No.15 of 2016 on the file of Labour Court, Tirunelveli is quashed and the matter is remitted to the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

4.With the above directions, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Tirunelveli District. 2 The Inspector of Labour, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. +2CC to Mr.M.E.Ilango, Advocate, SR.No. 58360 and 58361

¶24

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.58938

¶25

W.P.(MD)Nos.9212 and 9246 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.7025 and 6999 of 2017

¶26

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

¶27

skn

¶28

AM/JC/SAR 1/19.04.2018/2P/6C

Y-92, Manavalakurichy Primary v. C.Sathiyanesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y-92, Manavalakurichy Primary v. C.Sathiyanesan

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

Andi, S/O.Karuppan, Vs the Director of Townpanchayats

R.Gomathy, Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Kumar Vs the Administrative Officer

The Sericulture Department Vs the Presiding Officer

Gvk Emergency Management Vs the Presiding Officer

M.Saravanan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu