MANAGEMENT 0-322 KOVILPATTI CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY KOVILPATTI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent in I.D. No. 418 of 1993, dated June 30, 1994, directing the reinstatement of the second respondent with all back wages and continuity of service.THE brief facts of the case are,THE second respondent claimed that he was employed in the petitioner's society as a weigher, on the first instance on and from August 5, 1987, and thereafter, he worked as a salesman from June 27, 1989 on a monthly salary of Rs. 225. According to the second respondent, he along with certain other employees were engaged on daily basis on a deposit of Rs. 500 by way of security deposit, that, they were given frequent breaks in service, that after the new set of office-bearers of petitioner's society, the petitioner was denied employment on and from January 20, 1991, while another person by name L. Rathinaraj Sargunam was appointed in his place. It was also claimed at certain other employees were allowed to continue in service, who were also subsequently made permanent.On February 20, 1991, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute, which came up for consideration before the first respondent in I.D. No. 418 of 1991 along with the claim petition in C.D. No. 89 of 1992 preferred by the second respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner resisted the claim of the second respondent by contending that the engagement of the second respondent was contrary to the rules relating to the service conditions of its employees, that the regular employees of the petitioners are recruited only through Employment Exchange, that the second respondent was not recruited through Employment Exchange, that the service was not continuous and in the circumstances Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was also not attractedBy a common award, dated June 30, 1994, the first respondent while dismissing the claim made by the second respondent in C.P. No. 89 of 1992, granted the relief of the claim reinstatement with back wages, etc., in I.D. No. 418 of 1991.

(3.) THE distinction sought to be made at the instance of the learned counsel for the second respondent is fully covered by the said Division Bench judgment of our High Court.THE judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in Koodaranji Service Co-operative Bank v. M. M. Lissy and others (supra) being in conflict with the Division judgment of our High Court and since, I have preferred to follow the Division Bench judgment of our High Court, I do not propose to rely upon the same.As far as the judgment of the learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court is concerned, the facts involved herein are entirely different and intact, the learned single Judge referred to the fact that, in that case, there was a compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.