PONNUSAMY S Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his common order, dated February 14, 1995, in C. P. Nos. 6 of 1992 and 252 of 1992, quash the same in so far as it denied the benefits of reinstatement to the petitioner as a shift-in-charge (or Assistant production Chemist) and the relief prayed for by the petitioner.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the first petition referred to above, the petitioner would submit that he joined the services of the second respondent company on April 4, 1978; that he also performed the duties of the shift in charge and was the sole shift in charge of the boiler house though he was designated as apprentice trainee; that the period of his training was extended periodically and he was required to obtain a first class Boiler competency Certificate during the period of his training, which according to the Madras Boiler attendant Rules could be obtained only after a minimum of five years of service; that after obtaining the second class Boiler Competency certificate on October 4, 1981, he was terminated from service on the ground that he had not obtained a first class Boiler competency Certificate; that he raised an industrial Dispute No. 82 of 1982 before the labour Court, Coimbatore challenging his termination; that the Labour Court by award, dated March 9, 1983, directed the petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages; that the petitioner filed a Claim petition No. 406 of 1983 under Section 33-C (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act before the same court claiming back wages for the period from april 4, 1979 to April 4, 1983; that during the pendency of the said claim petition, the second respondent filed W. P. No. 8353 of 1983 challenging the said award; that this Court dismissed the above writ petition by order dated october 21, 1991; that on December 16, 1991, the second respondent issued an order reinstating the petitioner in the post of helper; that during his earlier tenure of service he worked as shift-in-charge which is a higher post then the post of helper; that representations to the second respondent to reinstate him as shift-in-charge to which there was no response; that he preferred a complaint on March 25, 1992 under Section 29 of the Industrial disputes Act before the Labour Officer, Salem in respect of the non-implementation of the award in I. D. No. 82 of 1982 by the second respondent; that the second respondent preferred a criminal Original Petition No. 176 of 1994 seeking to quash the said proceedings and obtained a stay of proceedings and subsequently, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on January 30, 1985; that the petitioner also filed Claim Petition No. 252 of 1992 claiming back wages of Rs. 7,57,285 for the period from October 5, 1983 to December 5, 1992; that his earlier claim petition was also transferred to the Labour Court, Salem and re-numbered as C. P. No. 6 of 1992; that as per the settlement under Section 12 (3) of the industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner claimed that he had to be designated as assistant production chemist; that the management contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any wages after December 28, 1991 and issued a notice directing him to join duty as helper since he had refused to join duty as helper; that the Labour Court, Salem by common order, dated February 14, 1995, in both the claim petitions computed the amount to be paid to the petitioner for the period covered in c. P. No. 252 of 1992 at Rs. 86,792. 50 and for the period covered in C. P. No. 6 of 1992 at rs. 25,170; that it is only against these orders the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it would submit that the second respondent is manufacturing aluminum ingots and wire rods having three boilers and some boiler operators having first class Boiler competency Certificate; that on March 28, 1978 the petitioner was appointed as an apprentice trainee for one year on condition that he should acquire first class Boiler Competency certificate during the period of training; that despite granting of extension, or time till october 3, 1981, he could not secure the same and so his employment came to an end on october 3, 1981; that the petitioner raised i. D. No. 82 of 1982 before the Labour Court, coimbatore and by award, dated March 9, 1983, the Labour Court held that the termination of his employment would amount to retrenchment and as the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with, the same was not justified and hence directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages; that the second respondent preferred w. P. No. 8353 of 1983 before this Court and by order, dated October 21, 1991, this Court confirmed the award of Labour Court; that on december 12, 1991, the second respondent called the petitioner for discussion and as the post of Boiler Attendant required a first class boiler Competency Certificate; that the petitioner could be appointed only as a helper and in that view on December 16, 1991, the second respondent appointed the petitioner as degrade helper but the petitioner insisted appointment as shift-in-charge; that the petitioner filed C. P. No. 6 of 1992 for back wages and C. P. No. 252 of 1992 was for wages as shift-in-charge till that date that by a common order, the first respondent passed an order on february 14, 1995, holding that the petitioner could be reinstated only in the post which he held before termination and as the petitioner did not acquire the required certificate; that the back wages was computed at Rs. 25,170 in c. P. No. 6 of 1992 and at Rs. 86,792. 50 in c. P. No. 652 of 1992 and in other respects, the claim of the petitioner was rejected; that according to the second respondent, the petitioner cannot agitate the question of his being appointed as shift-in-charge against the post of helper offered by the second respondent in a proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the allegations made by the petitioner are liable to be rejected and would pray to dismiss the writ petition referred above.