TNCSC LTD Vs. INSPECTOR OF LABOUR THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records in file Rc. No. AA/19146/92 in the office of the first respondent and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order No. Rc. No. AA/19146/92 dated 31st May 1995 issued by the first respondent.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Tamil Nadu Civil supplies Corporation Limited, Thanjavur for the aforesaid relief against the award of the 1st respondent allowing the claim of the respondents 2 to 156 for conferment of permanent status.

(3.) IN W. P. No. 14640/96, filed by the very same petitioner against a similar award upholding the claim of 129 workmen for conferment of permanent status, this court held as follows: "3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question regarding regularization of such seasonal employees are covered by two Section 12 (3) settlements, one of the year 1991 and the other of the year 1997. The first respondent had declined to consider the terms of the 1991 settlement on the ground that the period for which the settlement had to be enforced had expired and therefore that cannot be taken note of. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that until the other settlement takes its place, the terms of the previous settlement shall apply. A copy of the 1997 settlement has been produced and Clause 5 deals with the demand for giving preference to the qualified seasonal employees in the direct purchase centres while filling the regular vacancies. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this term in the settlement is adhered and that about 34 of the respondent workmen have been regularized and brought under time scale of pay and 64 have been recorded as seasonal workmen. 4. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in t. N. C. S. C. Workers'Union vs. T. N. C. S. C. Ltd. & Ors. (1998 1 LLJ 728) was brought to my notice. That case was also between the petitioner Corporation and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union. IN that case also, the question was regarding the regularization of seasonal employees on the ground that the petitioners had completed 480 days of service. The Division Bench held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu INdustrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 would not apply to the petitioner corporation since direct purchase centres where employees are working are establishments of seasonal character depending on procurement season, and that the provisions of Act do not apply to seasonal employees. 5. The Division Bench also held that such seasonal employees are appointed on adhoc basis and not against sanctioned vacancy and therefore they are not ipso facto entitled to regularization. IN para 20 A, the division Bench held that as and when vacancy arises, the Corporation is obliged to consider the claim of the qualified seasonal employees pursuant to the settlement reached between them and the workmen under Section 12 (3) of the Act. The copy of the 1997 settlement also shows that this particular union had been a signatory to the settlement since the Signatory No. 4 is Thiru S. Chandrakumar, general Secretary who has represented the workers before the first respondent. 6. IN view of the Division Bench judgment and recording the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner corporation would abide by the terms of the settlement and regularise the services of the workmen as and when vacancy arises in terms of the settlement, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. "