← Library
Madras High CourtWP/22534/2012dismissed

The Management v. The Presiding Officer

2020-02-05Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.02.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.22534 of 2012 The Management, Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd., Villupuram.

... Petitioner vs

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore.

2. M.Manibalan, S/o Munusamy .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.4/2008 on the file of the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Cuddalore and to quash the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the 1st respondent in the said I.D.No.4/2008.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Ramiah For Respondents:

Mr.G.Mugesh Kumar for R2

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 21.02.2012 made in I.D.No.4/2008.

2. The Management is the writ petitioner. The 2nd respondent herein approached the Labour Court and filed the said I.D. under section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act to set aside the oral dismissal dated 17.03.2007 and for reinstating him with continuity of service, backwages and the other attendant benefits.

3. The case of the 2nd respondent herein before the Labour Court is as follows:

He was appointed as excavator operator on 11.02.2004 and he worked continuously under such capacity from 11.02.2004 to 16.03.2007. He worked 240 days in a year continuously. His request for making him as a permanent employee was not considered and on the other hand, the Management, without any reason, stopped him from doing his duty from 17.03.2007 orally. The conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer failed. Therefore, the said I.D. was filed.

4. The Management contested the I.D. by stating as follows:

The 2nd respondent herein was engaged as a daily wage employee on temporary basis. He was not appointed on a regular basis. No appointment letter was issued to him. He only worked for a few days in a calendar year. He was never employed continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. There was no need for the Management to terminate the service of the 2nd respondent herein since he was not a regular employee.

5. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined two witnesses and marked four documents in support of his claim. Though the Management examined one witness, no exhibits were marked on their side. The Labour Court, taking note of the evidence let in by the workman viz., Exs.W2 to W4 came to the conclusion that he worked in the Management for the period from 08.10.2004 to 27.02.2007 and that there was regular need of his service in the Management for years together. The Labour Court has also taken note of the admission made by the Management witnesses that the original document with reference to Exs.W2 to W4 may be in the office of the Management with the Divisional Manager but he did not know the reason for nonproduction of those documents before the Court.

It is also noted by the Labour Court that the Management admitted in his evidence, the details regarding the number of days of work attended by the 2nd respondent herein are in the office of the respondent Management and the work attendance details will be available with the office of the Divisional Manager. It is also pointed out by the Labour Court that the workman, though filed I.A.No.144/2011 directing the Management to produce the documents and that the said I.A. was allowed on 18.07.2011, the Management has not produced any documents before the Labour Court.

6. Therefore, in the above stated facts and circumstances, the Labour Court, by taking adverse inference against the Management for suppressing the material documents and by taking note of the evidence let in by the workman viz., Exs.W2 to W4, has passed the impugned award directing reinstatement with continuity of service only with 25% of the backwages, also by indicating that the workman is not entitled for other attendant benefits. I find that the above Award of the Labour Court does not require any interference in view of the admitted position that the Management has failed to prove their case before the Labour Court by adducing any evidence, though they were given sufficient opportunity to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner Management also submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Management has taken the 2nd respondent in service in lieu of paying Section 17-B wages. Therefore, admittedly, the 2nd respondent is now working under the petitioner Management.

7. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no valid ground is made out to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore.

W.P.No.22534 of 2012 A.SK(25/02/2020)