D.RAJA Vs. GUDIYATTAM CO-OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the award passed by the second respondent-Labour Court, Vellore, in I.D.No.127/98, dated 23.01.2002, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages and continuity of service with all attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as clerk by the respondent from 12.06.1994. He was paid wages weekly at the rate of Rs.60.00 per day. While he was continuously working for about 3 = years, he was denied employment from 20.12.1997 without any written order. As there was no reason assigned for removing him from service, he has approached the respondent-management, but, there was no response from them. Therefore, finding no other option, he has approached the Labour Court on the ground that when there was no charge or enquiry against him and when the procedure contemplated under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not followed, the termination order passed by the first respondent was invalid and the same amounted to illegal retrenchment. The Labour Court, considering the claim of both sides, dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner holding that the employment given to the petitioner was bad and not as per the procedures, as he should have possessed the minimum qualification of pass in 12th standard and should have completed Co-operative training, but he had studied only upto SSLC. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) IN support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011-III-LLJ-1 (SC) for a proposition that mode of recruitment is not relevant to decide the status of a person as workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, he has also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in W.A.No.912 of 2001, dated 14.08.2008, to say that Rule 149(2) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, for the reason that he was engaged on daily wage basis, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the appointment made by the Special Officer was illegal.