MANAGEMENT, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. STATE GENERAL SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU LABOUR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition has been preferred as against the order passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No.63 of 2011 dtd. 30/1/2018, wherein the respondent has raised an industrial dispute as against the petitioner Management before the Labour Court and the Labour Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ petition has been filed by the Management.

(2.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Union filed an industrial dispute for declaration of appointment as 'Training Driver' dtd. 30/3/2001 issued to Mr. S. Venkatachalam, the member of the Labour Union and to revise the order of temporary appointment dtd. 28/3/2002 issued to the said Mr. S. Venkatachalam and to implement the date of appointment on 19/4/2001 from the date of joining through the Employment Exchange and to direct the corporation Management to calculate and pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner and to revise the order of regular appointment dtd. 29/3/2003 issued to the said Mr. S. Venkatachalam and to implement the date of appointment as 24/3/2002 on completion of 240 days service and to direct the Corporation Management to calculate and pay the arrears of salary and other allowances and the same was allowed by the Labour Court.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Writ petition itself is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. The Labour Court passed the order on 30/1/2018, but the Writ petition has been preferred only on 24/8/2022 with delay of more than 4 1/2 years. There is no any explanation for the above such huge delay. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Even on merits, the petitioner was initially appointed on 30/3/2001 as training driver and thereafter, he was appointed on a consolidated payment basis and he was appointed as permanent employee on 29/3/2003 and thereafter, without any notice, his appointment order was cancelled vide an order dtd. 3/4/2003. Thereafter, the workmen filed a Writ petition and the same was disposed of and thereafter, a Writ appeal was preferred and the same was allowed and the cancellation of appointment was set aside. Therefore, when the said S. Venkatachalam was appointed as 'Training Driver' on 19/4/2001 and again on 28/3/2002, he cannot be appointed as training driver and after completion of 240 days from 24/3/2002, he ought to have been made permanent. Therefore, he is entitled to the monetary benefits from 19/4/2001. The Labour Court, after considering the evidences adduced on both sides, passed a reasoned order. Therefore, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.