Chairman v. The Industiral Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.19229 OF 2000 ORDER:

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the award dated 18.8.1999 in I.T.I.D.(C) No.12 of 1996 on the file of the 1st respondent, and to quash the same.

2.

Heard Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour.

3.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that 24 daily labourer through union i.e., the 2nd respondent raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer on the question as to whether 24 daily labourer, who had completed 240 days, are entitled for regularization in terms of policy of the petitioner or not, and after conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report, and then, the appropriate Government referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the 1st respondent for adjudication and that the 1st respondent passed the award on 18.8.1999 in I.T.I.D.(C ) No.

12 of 1996 holding that 24 casual labourer are entitled to financial benefits by way of regularisation of service from the date of reference, and aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner-management filed this writ petition.

concerned, their cases were rejected on the ground that they are not entitled for regularisation.

4.

The only issue which remains to be considered is whether the services of the casual labourer were regularized from the date of reference or not. A notice had been sent to the 2nd respondent at the time of admission. Again, notice was taken up by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 21.11.2017 so to enable the 2nd respondent to contest the matter. The 2nd respondent did not make any appearance. 5.

As per the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the services of 15 casual labourer were regularized prior to the date of reference, and subsequently, the services of 7 labourer were regularized, and the remaining two casual labourer are not entitled for regularization.

6.

Recording the statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the services of 22 casual labourer have been regularized even before passing of the award by the 1st respondent, and the case of the other two casual labourer was rejected as they did not come within the zone of consideration, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ (ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J) 19th December, 2017 Nn

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No.19229 of 2000 19.12.2017 Nn