Palani, S/o.Munuswamy Vs The Presiding Officer

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 1^st respondent herein viz., The Presiding Officer, 3^rd Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 104, in C.P.No.50 of 2009 dated 03.10.2012 and quash the same and further direct the 2^nd respondent herein to pay the arrears amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- as principal and recover the same from the agent as both are joint and severally liable to pay the same.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.30933 of 2014

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lawrence For Respondents : R1 – Court : No Appearance, for R2 : R3 – Dismissed, vide order dated 20.11.2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has come up with this Writ petition seeking quashment of the order passed by the 1^st respondent 03.10.2012, refusing to grant him the claim as sought for in the Claim Petition No.50 of 2009.

¶21

The Brief facts which are necessary to disposal of this Writ petition are as follows:

¶22

The petitioner claims himself to be an employee under the 2^nd respondent and he claims that he entered into service under the 2^nd respondent on 02.01.2004 as Garden supervisor and continued to work in the said post till his oral termination on 15.02.2008. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition No.50 of 2009 claiming a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards over time charges, bonus and earned leave wages. The said claim petition was rejected by the 1^st respondent, vide impugned order dated 03.10.2012. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

2/7

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.30933 of 2014

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner joined the services of the 2^nd respondent as a Gardener in the year 2004 and all of a sudden, the 2^nd respondent orally terminated the services of the petitioner in the year 2008, after about five years and even the difference of salary was not paid to the petitioner. Thereby, the petitioner filed a computation/claim petition u/s. 33C(2) of the ID Act in C.P.No.50 of 2009 and before the 1^st respondent, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 to prove his case and the existence of employer-employee relationship between the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner and he also marked exhibits P.1 to P.8, however, on the side of the respondents, no documents were marked and no witnesses were examined. However, without considering any of the above said documents, the 1^st respondent, vide impugned order dismissed the said petition in respect of the 2^nd respondent and allowed the same in respect of the 3^rd respondent herein, which is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

¶27

Though notice was served and the name of the 2^nd respondent

¶28

was printed in the cause list, none appeared on its behalf. However, 3/7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.30933 of 2014

¶31

considering the period of pendency of this Writ petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition based on the materials available on record.

¶32

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was indeed working under the 2^nd respondent and therefore, it is the 2^nd respondent who has to pay the benefits claimed by the petitioner, however, there is absolutely no evidence produced by the petitioner either before this Court or before the Labour Court to substantiate his claim. Even the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this Writ petition is bereft of any particulars and it is as vague as it could be. On the other hand, the 2^nd respondent has clearly demonstrated before the Labour Court that there was an agreement between the 2^nd respondent management and the 3^rd respondent herein who was running an agency and as per the said agreement, whenever the 2^nd respondent was in need of any labour, the 3^rd respondent would send some labourer. Only in that way, the petitioner was appointed.

¶33

4/7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.30933 of 2014

¶36

As rightly observed by the Labour Court, there was no

¶37

employer-employee relationship between the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner at any point of time and the petitioner was all along seen working under the 2^nd respondent only as per the direction of the 3^rd respondent herein. Moreover, there was no written order in any form either appointing the petitioner under the 2^nd respondent or terminating the services of the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent. Even as per the admission of the petitioner, the termination was only oral. Therefore, as rightly observed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner cannot have any claim as against the 2^nd respondent and allowed the same as against the 3^rd respondent, in which, this Court does not finds any fault with.

¶38

If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he could move only as

¶39

against the 3^rd respondent. Hence, by sustaining the impugned order of the 1^st respondent, this Court is inclined to dismiss this Writ petition.

¶40

5/7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.30933 of 2014

¶43

For the reason aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed

¶44

with a liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law as against the 3^rd respondent by way of filing appropriate Execution petition before the 1^st respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

05.03.2025

¶46