A CHINNARAJU Vs. PERIYAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P.No.32834 of 2002, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.3.2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner for regularisation under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. In W.P.No.32835 of 2002, the prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service, backwages and all other benefits.

(2.) The petitioners claim that they were appointed on daily wages by the first respondent University in various posts and they were being paid on monthly basis. It is stated that the nature of posts are permanent, essential, continuous and perennial in nature and they were working continuously without any break in service from two to four years. Accordingly they claim that they should be conferred permanent status. It is further claimed that the first respondent by oral orders imposed artificial break in service with a view to deny opportunity to the petitioners from claiming permanent appointment. It is further stated that on the basis of such disengagement, the second respondent by order dated 21.3.2002, dismissed the Petition No.8509/2001 on the ground that the petitioners were already discharged from the service. On the aforesaid basis, two writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioners had been employed as casual workers for attending the work relating to examinations. The nature of work assigned to them are arranging question papers, answer papers, packing question and answer papers in bundles, labelling those bundles by filling up the required particulars for transmitting the same to the examination centres and loading the parcels in vans. It has been stated that the nature of work are casual and seasonal and the work attended by the petitioners was not permanent. The allegation that the petitioners were working continuously for 2 to 4 years had been denied. It is also stated that the petitioners had filed petition on 26.11.2001 before the Labour Inspector claiming right under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. Subsequently, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3321 of 2002 seeking for a direction to the University to regularise the service of the petitioners and by order dated 16.4.2002, such writ petition was dismissed with liberty to workout their remedy available under law.