COMMISSIONER, THIRUVALLUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. K. SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the Thiruvallur Municipality. The first respondent was employed from 01.04.1998 by the Writ petitioner Municipality to prepare estimate for the civil project works and to supervise the said work. He was paid on daily wages basis. Initially, he was paid wages at the rate of Rs.115/- per day in the year 1998. Later, in the year 1999, he was paid at the rate of Rs.144/- per day. While so, the first respondent was orally terminated from service on 04.10.1999.

(2.) The first respondent took up his non employment before the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.244 of 2000, after his conciliatory efforts failed. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent pleaded that he was continuously employed by the petitioner Municipality, without any break from 01.04.1998, till he was denied employment on 04.10.1999. Thus, he served more than 240 days in one year. It was further pleaded that he was engaged continuously on all the days except on weekly off. Further, even though the work in which he was employed still exists, the petitioner Municipality terminated him from service. He also pleaded that the denial of employment amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Shortly "the I.D. Act"). Since the mandatory conditions imposed under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act were not complied with, his termination was void ab initio.

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the petitioner Municipality filed a counter statement, wherein it was stated that the first respondent workman was employed on temporary basis for the project works, whenever required. He did not work continuously. The engagement of the first respondent was depending on the necessity of the Civil Project works. Further, it was stated that he was not recruited through Employment Exchange. When the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, issued a circular dated 29.09.1999 to all the Municipalities to stop engaging the temporary employees immediately, who were engaged in service after 01.10.1996, he was terminated from service, since the first respondent was engaged only from 01.04.1998.