T.PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the soundness of the impugned common award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.Nos.79 to 85, 124 and 125 of 2000 dated 23.4.2004, to quash the same insofar as the first respondent has negatived the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement with continuity of service along with backwages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) MR .K.Mohanamurali, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when all the writ petitioners were engaged by the second respondent Management as casual workers on various dates between 5.10.94 and 24.12.94, they were paid with a daily wage of Rs.80 to Rs.85. While so, all of a sudden, in the month of May 1998, the services of the petitioners were terminated without assigning any reason. As the Management did not follow or comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" in short), although the petitioners worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding one year, the Axle India Workers Union, which is championing the cause of majority workmen, objected to the said practice of engaging casual and contract workmen and also pressed for regularisation of their service. Accepting the objection made by the Axle India Workers Union, the second respondent Management reinstated all the petitioners in service in the month of March, 1999. Ironically, within a month thereafter, the second respondent again orally terminated the services of the petitioners erroneously without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. When the union intervened with protest against the unjust termination of the petitioners, the second respondent stated that there has been a recession in the automobile industry, therefore, they were unable to continue the services of the petitioners. At the same time, the second respondent also announced a voluntary retirement scheme for the permanent workmen. Even though the union advised the workmen not to opt for the voluntary retirement scheme, the second respondent offered a substantial amount as compensation to some of the casual workmen also and finally the second respondent entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act with the individual workman for leaving the company on payment of compensation. Accepting the settlement, out of 56 workmen, 47 workmen accepted the compensation. However, 9 of them refused to accept the settlement reached under Section 18(1) with the second respondent Management. As they refused to accept the Section 18(1) settlement, the second respondent terminated their service. Therefore, challenging their non-employment, the petitioners raised industrial disputes under Section 2-A(1) of the Act. When the issue was taken up for conciliation by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, it was specifically represented before the Conciliation Officer that the petitioners had worked for more than 480 days in two calendar years, therefore, they had become entitled for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981. But the second respondent adopted a stiff and adamant attitude, as a result, the conciliation ended in failure and the matter was brought before the I Additional Labour Court in I.D.Nos.79 to 85, 124 and 125 of 2000.

(3.) FURTHER , the learned counsel for the petitioners, having filed an interlocutory application in W.P.M.P.No.104 of 2013 during the pendency of the writ petition seeking permission to file additional documents in support of the writ petition, again pleaded that when the petitioners were working as casual workers, they were actually engaged in regular production jobs along with the other workmen in the factory of the second respondent. When the second respondent had paid bonus to the permanent employees as per Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the same bonus was paid to the casual workmen. In support of his submission, the learned counsel also took me through the set of documents annexed to the typedset viz., receipt dated 13.10.95 issued by the second respondent in the name of Mr.N.Ramesh, the sixth petitioner herein for payment of bonus of Rs.1880/- for the year ended 31.3.95, another receipt dated 18.10.96 issued to the very same person for payment of bonus of Rs.2239.40 for the year ended 31.3.96, another receipt dated 28.11.97 for payment of bonus of Rs.2690/- for the year ended 96-97 and for payment of festival advance. Similarly, one another set of documents forming part of the typedset for payment of bonus in the name of Mr.J.Balu, the seventh petitioner herein for the year 1995 was also taken through to show that the said Mr.J.Balu was paid with the provident fund contribution. Except these documents, no other document supporting the case of the petitioners has been filed by the petitioners. However, with the documents of these petitioners, the learned counsel submitted that all these material documents will show that the petitioners are all working continuously and they were paid with the bonus, festival advance, overtime wages. Therefore, all these documents cannot be ignored lightly. However, when the second respondent has failed to raise the point of continuous employment of the petitioners, the petitioners were not able to file all the documents before the Labour Court, even though they had worked for more than 240 days. Therefore, the matter has to be remanded to the Labour Court with a direction to take on record all the relevant documents filed before this Court for proper adjudication of the entire industrial disputes of all the petitioners. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santuram Yadav and another v. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara and another reported in (2010) 3 SCC 189 and contended that important material documents showing the continuous service of the petitioners working under the employer cannot be lightly ignored. Hence, he pleaded, the issue needs to be remanded for a decision afresh to the Labour Court.