A RAVI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Pondicherry, dated 24.06.2002 in I.D.No.18 of 2000.

(2.) The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Pondicherry, contending that he was appointed by the second respondent as Gumastha (Clerical Work) on 31.03.1988, as a daily rated employee and he had put in more than 3= years of continuous service and his services was terminated on 19.07.1991, without any notice or enquiry. Therefore, on 16.11.1994, the petitioner raised conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer and the second respondent also filed reply statement. The Labour Officer filed a failure report on 19.12.1996 and thereafter, further conciliation proceedings were done and since, the petitioner was not reinstated, he raised the present Industrial Dispute. It is contended that the respondent Board has not maintained seniority in matter of engagement, re-engagement of daily rated employees and the persons, who were employed after the petitioner's appointment were allowed to continue, the petitioner also gave names of 21 such employees. On the above stated grounds, the petitioner contended that his termination is illegal and prayed for a direction to the respondent Board to reinstate the petitioner in service with arrears, continuity of service, backwages and attendant benefits.

(3.) The Board filed reply statement before the Labour Court inter-alia contending that the petitioner was a Gumastha in Division II of the Engineering wing of the Pondicherry Housing Board set up for the construction of 2000 Housing Scheme and the Scheme is already wound up and all the wages were paid to the workmen and hence, the Rule of last come first go does not arise. It is further submitted that the Division II of the Engineering Wing was exclusively set up for the construction of "2000 Housing Scheme" in Olandai Phase-I & II and Boomianpet and the same was wound up during 1991, after the completion of the work and therefore, the question of reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise. In the reply statement, it was admitted that the petitioner was engaged on daily rated basis as Gumastha from 31.03.1988 to 19.07.1991. Further, it was contended that the petitioner was not engaged beyond 19.07.1991.