K.PUSHPARAJ Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second round of litigation by the petitioners. The petitioners earlier filed W.P. Nos. 36273 to 36284 of 203 claiming absorption as permanent employees in the Clearing and Forwarding Department (for short 'C & amp; F Department') or in any other department in the Chennai Port Trust with effect from the date of which proportionate vacancies were filled up by the Madras Dock Labour Board in any one of its schemes as agreed before this Court in W.A. No. 62 of 1992. On notice from this Court, the Port Trust filed the Counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioners.

(2.) In the identical counter affidavit filed by them during December 2005 it was contended that a compromise was reached during the year 1992 between the Union and the Madras Dock Labour Board and based on that direction was issued in W.A. No. 62 of 1992. Hence, the question of filling up of vacancies and following the priority could arise only if vacancies were to be filled up under Clearing and Forwarding Scheme framed in 1988. As per the compromise memo, the Madras Dock Labour Board was bound to fill up vacancies (the Madras Dock Labour Board has now been merged with Chennai Port Trust with effect from 28.5.2001) if the strength of Clearing and Forwarding Scheme falls below 320 only as per para (4) of compromise Memo. There was no obligation on the part of Madras Dock Labour Board to fill up the vacancies that arose in the Registered Scheme with the erstwhile 67 Casuals (now 65 casuals) of Clearing and Forwarding Labour of the private Scheme, but only to provide one vacancy notionally in the ratio of 4:1, to fill up on priority in the Clearing and Forwarding Scheme for every 4 vacancies in the Clearing and Forwarding Scheme in the ratio of 4:1 between the dependent of Dock Labour Board who are in the waiting list and Clearing and Forwarding Casuals. Even after introduction of Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme during the year 1992, the strength of 500 has been reduced to 336 as on 24.3.1997 as against the required optimum strength of 320.

(3.) It was also stated in that counter affidavit that to ensure peace and industrial amenity, 15 persons within the list of 65 persons were given appointment in the Registered Scheme though these 15 persons do not have any right to stake claim for appointment in the said Scheme. Further, in order to secure continuous employment opportunities, a Memorandum of Understanding was reached on 22.8.1992 between the Madras Dock Labour Board and recognised Unions, viz., Madras Port & Dock Workers Congress and Madras Harbour Workers Union for deployment of workmen from one scheme to another scheme. There will be no occasion to give appointment to any of these 65 persons, whose names are in the list under the compromise Memo in the C & amp; F Scheme. Since there was no vacancy available in the Clearing and Forwarding Scheme, instead of keeping them notionally on record, the management of Madras Dock Labour Board had offered appointment to 15 retrenched casuals of Clearing and Forwarding Scheme in compliance with the Court orders.