VELLAI Vs. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.3730/2004-Pa. Dated 03.05.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in the post of Plot Watcher.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been working as plot watcher at the respondent organisation from 01.10.1989 and his service was dispensed with only from 30.10.1999 and till such time he was working as such for more than 10 years and in spite of his long service, though as temporary plot watcher, his services has been dispensed with. Therefore, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.137 of 2001 before the Labour Court, Madurai. The said Labour Court by ex-parte award dated 09.02.2004, has given the award in favour of the petitioner, by which a direction was given to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages with costs.

(3.) Since the said award was not implemented, immediately, the petitioner has also filed C.P.No.63 of 2004 before the same Labour Court, where order was passed on 09.09.2004, by which the Labour Court directed the respondent therein to pay a sum of Rs.62,400/- by way of back wages. Since the said back wages was not paid, inspite of the direction to the respondents therein, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD) No.8868 of 2009, wherein this Court by order dated 19.11.2009, issued direction to the respondents, including the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk and the Executive Officer, Forest Research Division, Kadavoor, Chatrapatti Post, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District for payment of said sum as back wages as has been directed by the District Collector, Madurai District, who was first respondent in that writ petition. Pursuant to the said order, back wages has been paid to the petitioner. However, the remaining award regarding reinstatement of service has not been complied with. Instead of filing further C.P. for implementation of that order, the petitioner has wrongly approached the second respondent to give back the job and in response to the said representation, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 03.05.2010, in Na.Ka.3730/2004-Pa. By the said order dated 03.05.2010, the second respondent has stated that the petitioner had given representation on 02.03.2010 to give back the same job, where the petitioner had worked for a longer period and as the said job is temporary in nature and he would be engaged in service only on need basis and whenever need arises the service of the petitioner would be utilised. By stating this, the request of the petitioner has been turned down by denying any job immediately. Challenging the said order dated 03.05.2010, the petitioner had filed this writ petition.