VELLORE MUNICIPALITY Vs. D DENNISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the six Appeals have arisen from a common judgment rendered by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated 19.4.1990 in A.S.Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 of 1990 respectively reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Vellore dated 25.1.1990 in O.S.Nos.192, 194, 195, 196, 197 and 198 of 1984 respectively.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the suits can be stated briefly as follows: THE respondents were employed as Pump Operators-cum- Electricians by the 2nd defendant namely, Tamil Nadu Water Supply Drainage Board from 18.12.1982 for the Vellore Water Supply Scheme and posted at the Booster Station, Vellore; that the respondents were deputed by the District Employment Officer, Vellore and were appointed thus by the 2nd defendant under the proceedings dated 11.12.1982; that they were continuously employed from the said date; that the 2nd defendant handed over the said water supply and Improvement Scheme along with the Booster Station to the 1st defendant namely Vellore Municipality; that the 1st defendant took over the scheme from 1.2.1984 for the continued maintenance; that the respondents continued to work under the Scheme at the Booster Station; that the 1st defendant with a view to deprive the rights of office of the respondents has called for fresh applications from the Employment Exchange, Vellore, for filling up the office by new hands; that on coming to know about the same, the representations dated 8.2.1984 were made to the Commissioner of the 1st defendant; that on receipt of the representations the 1st defendant sent a reply dated 10.2.1984 confirming its proposal to call for fresh hands and further directed the respondents to once again supply through the employment exchange afresh for the very post that the respondents were holding; that the conduct of the first defendant was mala fide, illegal and was in clear abuse of its official power as an Officer of a statutory body; that the Tamil Nadu Water Supply Drainage Board was an Industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the respondents are the workmen and the terms and conditions of services of all workmen are all governed and regulated by the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder; that the respondents cannot be terminated in violation of the said provisions and Act and Rules; that the respondents have served in the post for more than one year and hence the 1st defendant could not deny the right of office to the respondents by calling for fresh hands from the employment exchange since the rights of office of the respondents were a common law rights and civil action can be initiated and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Under such circumstances the respondents had brought forth the suits for declaration that the respondents are entitled to continue in the office as Pump Operators Cum-Electricians under the Vellore Water Supply Scheme of the Vellore Municipality and consequential permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the respondents office except according to the procedure established by law.

(3.) ARGUING for the appellants, learned counsel would submit that the first appellate Court should have held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit since the dispute is between the employer and employee and it has to be necessarily to be resolved though the Special Court established under the statute; that the District Court was in error in holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit without considering the legal plea as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the facts and circumstances of the case; that it is pertinent to note that the first respondent could not claim appointment to the permanent post which was to be filled up as per the Government instructions by the appellant and the employment of the first respondent by the 2nd respondent was on temporary basis; that even assuming without considering that the water scheme was once sponsored by appellant, the employment of the first respondent by the second respondent was temporary arrangement to commission the scheme and that the fact that the second respondent has given the scheme to the appellant itself would show that the right to appoint permanent persons after calling for names from the employment exchange was unfettered one; that the suit itself was not maintainable and the relief claimed by the first respondent could not be granted under the provisions of the specific relief act since he had no pre-existing legal rights to continue in the post; that the grant of relief by the first appellate Court was in effect granting relief of specific performance to enforce the personal contract of services against the appellant which was not permissible in law; that even as per the averments contained in the pleadings of the first respondent, the matter is purely within the jurisdiction of the forum constituted in the Industrial Disputes Act and the first appellate Court had not seen Exs.A-2, A-3 and in the proper perspective; that there was no employer employee relationship between the appellant and the first respondent and hence the findings to the effect of the first respondent cannot be treated as temporary employees which were wholly unsustainable; that the interpretation regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 were not correct in law and even assuming if such provisions were made applicable to the first respondent, the appellant was also given power to remove the temporary servant to fill up the permanent post by way of regular appointment after terminating the services of the first respondent; that without looking at the proper perspective on Ex.A-1, the first appellate Court has given finding that the first respondent was entitled to file a suit for declaration in the event of his termination contrary to the provisions of Act and the Standing Orders; that the lower Court was not correct in holding that merely because the payment was made by the appellant to the first respondent though employment by the 2nd respondent, the employer- employee relationship existed between them and the first respondent was entitled between them and the first respondent was entitled to continue the same post even after the scheme was handed over to the appellant and for all these reasons the judgment of the first appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside and all the suits have got to be dismissed.