The Managing Director, v. The Presiding Officer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.12.2019 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Manager B.Karthikeyan No.22 Besant Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
R.Nagendran (died) 2.N.Sakunthala ... Respondents (The original 2nd respondent died and his wife is substituted as 2nd respondent, as per the order of this Court, dated 04.12.2019, passed in W.M.P.(MD).No.290 of 2019) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned award passed by the 1st respondent dated 09.10.2007 in I.D.No.315 of 1996 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Muruggan For 2nd respondent : Mr.S.M.Mohangandhi For R1 :Court
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.315 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the first respondent / Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the original 2nd respondent / workman with continuity of service but without backwages on the ground 1/4
that the retrenchment of the 2nd respondent, who served about five years, is illegal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent .
3. When the writ petitioner challenged the similar award passed in favour of a similarly placed workman, a learned Single Judge of this Court in an unreported decision in the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., rep. by its General Manager Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and others, (W.P.(MD).No.11909 of 2008), dated 16.03.2012, has confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "9. The contention raised by the Fisheries Corporation was that the appointment of the workman was irregular and illegal and once specific project appointment has been given, he is not entitled for any further relief.
On the contrary, the workman contended even before the project employment, he was working in the department and as per the certificate given by the Deputy Manager Operation, he was earlier working on daily wages from 02.04.1984 to 31.12.1986 and then as farm worker from 01.01.1987 to 31.03.1987. Though it was stated in the project, he was employed temporarily, but even the previous employment was also under the Fisheries Corporation. At the time of relieving him from service, no retirement compensation was ordered to him in terms of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
10. The Labour Court was not wrong in stating that the termination was not valid. The Fisheries Corporation had failed to convince the Labour Court the need for retrenching the workman and the statutory compliance before passing the order of retrenchment.
11.The Learned counsel for the Fisheries Corporation attempted to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1992-II LLJ 452 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others) for contending a scheme employee cannot seek for regularisation, but that is not a ground taken before the Labour Court. In any event, inasmuch as the workman had completed 240 days of service in the employment, the order of termination is illegal. In this context, it is necessary to 2/4
refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1976) 1 SCC 822 (State Bank of India v. N.Sunara Money).
12. The other portion of the Labour Court denying back wages is concerned, no fault can be found in the said order. Admittedly, the petitioner is a casual labour and the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248 (Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam) held that even in case of invalid termination under Section 25-F, the normal rule may be reinstatement with backwages, but the Labour Court should consider several other factors such as the nature of employment being adhoc, daily wages, temporary, permanent, etc. and the delay in raising dispute.
13. In view of the above, this Court do no find any case is made out of interfere with the Award challenged by both sides. Hence, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
The above decision was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2012, by order dated 26.04.2017.
4. The above decision of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In this case, as stated earlier, the 2nd respondent has served about five years on temporary basis, but he was suddenly terminated from service and therefore, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the original 2nd respondent / workman with continuity of service, but without backwages.
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 3/4
gcg To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to MR.S.M.MOHAN GANDHI, Advocate ( SR-103404[F] dated 04/12/2019 ) +1 CC to MR.R.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-103237[F] dated 04/12/2019 ) 04.12.2019 KM/(27.01.2020) 4P 4C 4/4