MANAGING DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LTD Vs. THIRU E VADIVELU; PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai.

(2.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in C.P.No.136 of 2009, dated 17.04.2012. This case has had a checkered history. Yet, the petitioner Corporation does not propose to grant any proper relief to the first respondent workman, in spite of he having succeeded up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) The first respondent was a temporary employee with the petitioner Corporation in the Technical Wing. Since his services were not regularised, he approached the Inspector of Factories, to confer permanent status on him and, on receiving notice from the said authority, the petitioner removed the first respondent from service, without issuing any notice. Challenging the non-employment, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.5 of 1992. During the pendency of the said I.D., the Inspector of Factories, by an order, dated 01.07.1987, conferred permanent status on the first respondent, against which the petitioner Corporation filed W.P.No.21852 of 1993, which was dismissed. No appeal was preferred against the said order. Thus, the order passed by the Inspector of Factories, conferring permanent status on the first respondent from 01.07.1987, had become final. The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute, by allowing it partly, and directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The petitioner Corporation challenged the award in W.P.No.5115 of 1996, which was admitted. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the workman filed a petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, pursuant to a direction issued, the first respondent workman was paid Rs.1,250/- per month, on par with the permanent workmen, with arrears from the date of filing of Writ Petition. Thereafter, W.P.No.5115 of 1996 was dismissed and the appeal filed against the order in the said Writ Petition in W.A.No.1287 of 2003 was also dismissed, and against the said order of dismissal, the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.23891 of 2003 was also dismissed, as leave was not granted. In the meantime, the first respondent workman filed W.P.No.6331 of 1997, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, in so far as it denied 50% of backwages. The said Writ Petition was allowed, by an order, dated 17.04.2004, by holding that the workman was entitled for full salary from 18.05.1992, being the date, on which permanent status was conferred on him, making it clear that the salary payable to the first respondent shall be on par with the salary of permanent employees and, in other respects, the order of the Labour Court was confirmed. Therefore, the workman claimed that he should be paid on par with the other workman and the salary and other benefits should be calculated accordingly.