MANAGER PRODUCTION MAINTENANCE TAMILNADU CO OPRATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED Vs. P E AMARAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second Respondent viz., I Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 11.9.2002 and made in C.P. No. 313 of 1998 and set aside the same.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent has entered into service of the Petitioner's Federation as a part time Sweeper on 26.9.1975. Initially the Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 45/- only per men sum as consolidated pay and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs. 60/- per men sum and thereafter to Rs. 300/-per men sum with effect from 1.4.1991 and further enhanced to Rs. 500/- per manumit effect from 20.1.1997. For a part time sweeper, the working hours prescribed for her in a day is only 2 hours and the first Respondent is not subject to any disciplinary action if she seeks employment anywhere else during the remaining hours. When the first Respondent was not confirmed in her service as a part-time sweeper, she moved the appropriate authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workers) Act, 1981 and the said authority has passed an order on 18.11.1997 conferring permanent status to the Petitioner with effect from 1.1.1982. The first Respondent has been treated as a deemed permanent sweeper from 1.1.1982 and passed orders to the effect that the first Respondent is entitled for the proportionate payment of arrears of salary at the rate of 1/4th of the salary fixed for the contingency post as well as in the time scale with effect from 1.6.1988. The said order was passed on 31.3.1998 and the same was served by the first Respondent on 15.4.1998 and an amount ofRs.15, 990-50 has already been paid to the Petitioner on that account. Since the first Respondent is a permanent part-time sweeper she is not entitled for other benefit as given to the full time employee of federation who are appointed in accordance with rules. In the Claim petition filed by the first Respondent before the Second Respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computing the money value, the second Respondent without considering the law, facts and circumstances of the case allowed the claim petition filed by the first Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that based on the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, permanent status was conferred upon the 1st Respondent as part time sweeper with effect from 1.1.1982 and while so the first Respondent cannot seek the benefits of full time sweeper. The learned Counsel would further contend that from 1.1.1982 or on the date of passing order by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories on 18.11.1997, there was no sanctioned post of Full Time Sweeper and while so, the 2nd Respondent erred in directing the Petitioner to pay the salary to the 1st Respondent as that of a full time sweeper. The main contention of the Petitioner is that when there was no enforceable existing right to receive the monetary benefit, petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable.