CHENNAI BOTTLING COMPANY LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the Management of Chennai Bottling Company Ltd. , challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court directing reinstatement of the present Respondent No. 2 with backwages.

(3.) I. D. NO. 763 of 1990 was filed by the present second respondent before the Labour Court under Section 2a (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was claimed that the present petitioner has been producing soft drinks on the basis of the Franchise given by Coca Cola. The claimant before the Labour Court was working as a part of the Inspecting Staff since 1982 and was receiving Rs. 13/- per day as his basic wages. It was alleged by him that on 31. 3. 1990, the Management had called him and asked him not to attend to the work with effect from 2. 4. 1990. It was further indicated that the Management was in the habit discharging temporary workers every two months and taking them into service again and during the past 8 years, 140 workmen had not been confirmed. The claimant had written letters on 5. 4. 1990 and 7. 4. 1990 requesting the Management to take him back, but no reply was received. The matter was raised before the Conciliation Officer and a failure report was submitted. Thereafter the Industrial Dispute was raised. In the counter filed by the Management it was indicated that the company was producing drinks like Limca, Gold Spot, Coco Cola, for which there was demand only in some seasons and as per the requirement, management was recruiting temporary workers and the present Respondent No. 2 was one of such temporary workers recruited for seasonal work, who was removed from service as there was no requirement at that time. It was stated that there were few permanent workers, but many temporary workers like Respondent No. 2 were engaged as per the requirement. In the course of the Industrial Dispute, on behalf of the present Respondent No. 2, he himself was examined as W. W. 1 and documents Exs. W-1 to W-4 were marked. On behalf of the Management one Ramasubramaniam was examined as M. W. 1 and documents Exs. M-1 and M-2 were marked. The Labour Court after referring to oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days during the period between 1987 and 1990 and since there was no justification for termination, directed for reinstatement with backwages. The aforesaid order is being challenged by the Management in the present writ petition.