MAMUNDIRAJ N Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were sponsored by the Trade Apprenticeship, completed it with the respondents and they passed the examination. In 1983 they were interviewed and absorbed in the post of Artisan Grade IV skilled workers as Non -muster Employees. Later in 1985, they were designated or termed as Casual labourers, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories vide his order dated December 22, 1993, held the appellants to be entitled to be declared as permanent employees as envisaged by Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 1981 Act).

(2.) THE employer impugned the order in W.P. No. 1843 of 1994 on the grounds that the order was non -speaking order. It did not consider the sine quo non for conferring the status of permanent employees as the workmen did not work for a continuous period of 480 days during the preceding 24 calender months. As the interrupted periods of employment were wrongly directed to be counted, the long interruption would not come within the purview of authorised interruption.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Single Judge, on perusal of the impugned order, documents placed on record and after noticing the sequence of events, the facts and circumstances of the case found, that the impugned order conferring the status of a regular workman in terms of 1981 Act cannot be termed as non -speaking order. During the period between 1983 and 1992 when the claim for conferring the status of regular workman was made they were stopped from work with effect from March 31, 1992. It was observed that unless the relationship of master and servant subsist, any interruption cannot be taken into account. The deeming provisions for continuous service i.e., cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman is equivalent to Sec. 25 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the concept of non -employment under Sec. 25 -B of the I.D. Act observed, it would include retrenchment as well as a person whose service has been terminated or dicharged albeit illegal cannot at all be said to be a person in service, much less in continuous service. The Hon'ble single Judge observed that the concept of continuous service envisages a workman being in employment of 24 calender months continuous service of 480 days subsisting contract when it refers to service and non snapping of ties between employer and employee and employee. Thus in view of the observation made above, the Hon'ble single Judge found that as no finding has been given with respect to (i) whether the breaks in service, which are admittely seen in the statement of particulars produced, would amount to cessation of work during employment (ii) whether the relationship of master and servant continued for the entire period, remanded the case to the authorities for proper consideration and to decide in the light of the observations made.