The Management v. The Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2016

CORAM

The HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.A. (MD) No.1547 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD) No.11486 of 2016 The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, Bye-Pass Road, Collectorate P.O., Dindigul-624 004.

.. Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

2.S.G.Muniyandi .. Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 09.06.2016 made in W.P.(MD) No.1884 of 2009 on the file of this Court.

Prayer in WP(MD). 1884/ 2009 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the 1st respondent pertaining to its Order in I.D.No.152 of 1997 dated 2.4.2008 and quash the same.

For Appellant .. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

(2)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The appellant Corporation has the luxury of indefinite litigation at different tiers, because they can do so at the cost of public money. A case of sweeper, with no policy involved, is sought to be taken-up at the third time before us.

2. The Labour Tribunal has gone into the issue and found in favour of respondent No.2. In our view that should have been the end of the matter, as the order passed is based on appreciation of evidence. Not content with that, the appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The learned Single Judge has rightly opined that the available materials showed that respondent No.2 worked as a casual worker and when a query was raised as to whether any action was taken against the Branch Manager, who engaged respondent No.2, continuously, without taking permission from the Management, there was no answer. It was not as if the Branch Manager was found at fault. Thus, the learned Single Judge concluded that obviously such a continuous engagement was with the knowledge and consent and respondent No.2 having completed the statutory period of work, the Labour Tribunal was justified in directing his reinstatement into service. The learned Single Judge also rightly concluded that it is not the function of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence produced before the Labour Court.

5. We find such an endless litigation is wastage of judicial time. Considering that there is no merit, at the threshold itself, we dismiss the appeal with costs, quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) which shall be paid by the appellant to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Campus within two weeks from today for wasting the judicial time. Consequently, C.M.P.(MD) No.11486 of 2016 is closed. sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

(3) Copy To:The Co-Ordinator, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 cc to M/s.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate in SR.No. 74709/16 bbr CSL/SS-2/21.12.2016: 3P/4C W.A. (MD) No.1547 of 2016 01.12.2016