J.ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed in the Highways Department of the Tamil Nadu Government as a Road Mazdoor (NMR) in the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Tanjore, for road works from 02.07.1985 to 02.07.1989 for a period of four years. He was denied employment abruptly from 02.07.1989. He took up the matter relating to his non-employment on 26.08.1991 before the Labour Officer, Tanjore, who was the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act "). The Department filed a counter-statement before the Conciliation Officer stating that the Highways Department is not an industry under the I.D. Act and also the petitioner is not a workman under the I.D. Act. In view of such a stand, the conciliatory efforts failed and the Labour Officer gave the failure report dated 06.11.1991 under Sec. 12(4) of the I.D. Act.

(2.) Hence, the petitioner has filed a claim statement before the second respondent Labour Court in the year 1998 under Sec. 2(A)(2) of the I.D. Act. The same was taken on file by the Labour Court in I.D.No.76 of 1998. The petitioner stated in the claim statement in detail as to why there was a delay of seven years after getting failure report. He has stated that his poverty condition is the reason for not approaching the Court in time and he approached the Legal Aid Centre, Thiruthuraipoondi. Thereafter, he was directed to contact the Legal Aid Centre at the High Court, Chennai. He came to Chennai twice to meet the Advocate appointed by the Legal Aid Centre, but he could not meet the Advocate. Again, he repeatedly went to the Legal Aid Centre, Thiruthuraipoondi. Ultimately, in the year 1996, the counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Centre at High Court stated that the bundles were handed over to the Centre and that the petitioner could seek remedy only in the Labour Court at Cuddalore. Thereafter, he filed the application before the Labour Court.

(3.) The first respondent filed counter-statement before the Labour Court admitting that the petitioner was employed as a NMR on daily wages basis for doing labour work in the roads. He was not issued any appointment order. His engagement was "as temporary daily wage coolie ". Since no appointment order was issued, it was not necessary to issue termination order assigning reasons for termination. Since the petitioner was employed on daily wage basis, he has no right to claim appointment, when he was stopped after completion of work, for which he was employed. Since he was not a regular workman, the procedure contemplated under Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act for retrenchment would not be applicable for his termination.