K KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions relate to the claim of the three petitioners for getting re-employment in the second respondent State Transport Corporation on the basis that they had worked temporarily for several days in the Transport Corporation.

(2.) IN W. P. No. 11455 of 2007, the petitioner was a Driver and according to him, he had worked from 02. 6. 2005 on casual employment and that he was retrenched from service on 23. 7. 2006. Thereafter, he was not given any further employment by the Corporation. When he made representation to the respondent Corporation, they did not respond to the same and he filed a writ petition before this Court being W. P. No. 24856 of 2006 and this Court, by an order dated 07. 8. 2006, directed the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner. The second respondent Corporation by an dated 18. 9. 2005 informed the petitioner that he had not worked for 240 days in their Corporation and in their Monday Market Branch, he had worked from 19. 7. 2005 to 06. 8. 2005 for a period of 14 days and thereafter, after a long gap, he had worked from 16. 4. 2006 to 07. 5. 2006 and altogether he had worked for 27 days and his employment was necessitated due to increase in workload during festivals, absentism by workmen and also due to the strike notice issued by some Unions. But since he was not given any assurance of continuous employment after the spell of each employment, his services were dispensed with. Even at the time of employment, he was aware that he is not eligible for any permanency and no appointment order was given to him. Further, he was also told that at no point of time, the petitioner was engaged for 240 days in 12 calender months and in the light of the definition of the term 'retrenchment' found under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'i. D. Act'], he cannot be held to be retrenched. Once he had not been retrenched, no preference in terms of Section 25h of the I. D. Act can be given to him. Further, he was also informed that G. O. Ms. No. 41 Transport (C. 1) Department dated 13. 7. 2006 will not apply to him and that his name had not been removed from the rolls of the Employment Exchange.

(3.) IN the same way, the worker Michael Thason also filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 11456 of 2007 making a similar claim. He was also informed by the second respondent Corporation by an order dated 18. 9. 2005 that he has worked only for 12 days from 11. 11. 2001 to 23. 01. 2001 under the circumstances referred to above.