RADHAKRISHNAN R Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a driver in the second respondent-Corporation when he was dismissed from service without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had been employed as driver with the second respondent on and from May 24, 1986 and he had completed 323 days' continuous service till April 15, 1987. He had undergone training at the driver training school for a period of nine months. His services were terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute. It is the case of the second respondent that when the petitioner's name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange for the post of a driver, it was found during the interview that the petitioner did not satisfy the height requirement of 160 cms. since he was only 159 cms. tall. According to the second respondent, the rule relating to the height requirement had come into effect from April 13, 1987. On failure of conciliation, the matter went before the Labour Court in spite of an I. A. filed by the petitioner, the second respondent did not produce the basic documents which were in their possession, which would have proved his continuous service for a period of 240 days. ID. No.446 of 1992 was dismissed holding that termination was not illegal, firstly on the ground that the petitioner's service was not terminated, but it was a case of non-selection and next, the petitioner's employment, being a temporary one, is not a regular appointment and therefore, Section 25-F of the Act need not be followed. Against this, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the words "for any reason whatsoever" are used and they should be given the widest amplitude. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Section 25-B of the Act defines continuous service as a period of 240 days within a period of one year and even if this 240 days' requirement is satisfied within a period of 11 months, that should not make a difference. He further submitted that even before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed LA. No.230 of 1994 for production of the necessary records which would establish his period of continuous service and though the I. A. was allowed on May 30, 1994, the second respondent had not produced any of those documents and the Labour Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference therefrom. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that Section 25-J clearly shows that the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act will have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law, including Standing Order. Several decisions were relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., Management of State Bank of India v. V.M. Mahapurush 1995-I-LLJ-644 (Kant-DB), Reserve Bank of India and another v. C. D. Chauhan and others 1994 (1) L.L.N. 325, S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another AIR 1986 SC 1680: 1986 (3) SCC 273 : 1986-II-LLJ-351, Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court, Chandigarh and others 1990 (3) SCC 682 : 1990-II-LLJ-70, Kalicharan Rath v. Orissa Sangeet Natak Academy and another 1991-I-LLJ-125 (Ori). Learned counsel also pointed out that the Labour Court had relied on Kerala High Court in Eranalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court and others 1986-II-LLJ-492 (Ker) to arrive at its conclusion, but this judgment had been disapproved of by the Division Bench of our Court in President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madurai and K. Nagarajan 1996-II-LLJ-216 (Mad-DB) where the Division Bench had disagreed with the aforesaid judgment of the Kerala High Court on the ground that it runs contra to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala and others AIR 1980 SC 1219 : 1980 (3) SCC 340 : 1980-II-LLJ-72, Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court, Chandigarh and others (supra).