TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the award of the labour Court dated 12.03.2013 in I.D.No.701 of 2001.

(2.) According to the employee/second respondent he joined the services of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as a cleaner on 11.07.1996 in the mobile Environmental Laboratory at Manali and had been working continuously from 11.07.1996. Even though, he has completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a period of 12 calendar months without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he has been disengaged from service with effect from 12.07.1997. As the non-employment is not justified, the employee raised a dispute, which culminated into an award in the aforesaid Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service and other benefits. According to the employee, he is aggrieved as to the denial of back wages. However a Memo has been filed stating that he is willing to give up back wages till 31.07.2001, if he is provided with employment with effect from 01.08.2021.

(3.) The petitioner/Management has denied the said averment before the labour Court contending that the employee has worked for only 145 days and that his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He was engaged as a Casual Labour. On and off and he has not rendered 240 days of continuous service, and hence, the question of compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise. He was not appointed by the Board and there was no order of termination. According to the petitioner/Management, the question of denial of employment and violation of principles of natural justice cannot be canvassed in this case as the employee has no right of employment and that, there was no written order of termination. Since it has been reiterated that, as the employee has worked for 140 days only during the year 1996-1997, he will not be entitled to any benefits. A detailed counter has been filed by the Management before the Labour Court, wherein it has been stated that the employee has worked for 14 days in July 1996 and various dates in other months and that he has worked for 14 days in April 1997, totaling 145 days.