MANAGEMENT PATTUKOTTAI AZHAGIRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VELLORE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the award of the first respondent, dated March 11, 1993, in I.D. No. 56 of 1992 and to quash the same. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the second respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.

(2.) HEARD the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.

(3.) HAVING seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties the following are the admitted facts in this case. The second respondent herein worked as a mechanic in the petitioner-Corporation at their Krishna Nagar depot and he had worked for more than 18 months continuously. While he was deputed to repair a vehicle he suffered a grevious injury and he suffered a fracture of both ulna and radius. After treatment he reported for duty on July 12, 1986 but he was not allowed to join duty and since he was denied employment he raised an industrial dispute and ultimately it ended in the award passed in I.D. No. 56 of 1992, dated March 11, 1993, directing his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the said award the present writ petition has been filed contending that the second respondent herein had been engaged only on a casual basis intermittently between January 1986 and June 1986 and that there existed no permanent master and servant relationship as between the petitioner and the second respondent. According to them the second respondent was engaged purely depending upon the exigencies of work and that too only until June, 1986.