A V RAJAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKMAN has filed this Writ Appeal against the order, dated 19.10.2006, passed in W.P.No.2774 of 2001, wherein, the award of the first respondent, ordering reinstatement of the appellant, was set aside by a learned single Judge.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, he was appointed as a worker in the second respondent management on 16.08.1983 and continuously working as a temporary worker for over 14 years though he was a daily rated worker, his wages were paid once in a week and for some time he was also engaged as a Boiler Attender at that time, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in W.P.No.15051 of 1991 for appointment as a Boiler Operator, which was rejected, observing that as and when the post of Boiler Operator was brought into existence in the respondent's Corporation, the respondent should consider the appellant's case for being appointed in that post thereafter, on coming to know that he was dismissed from service by the second respondent with effect from June 1997, he filed a claim petition before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.734 of 1997, which was resisted by the second respondent management, on the grounds that the petition for regularization of service was not maintainable under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the matter in issue was res judicata between the parties and covered by the order of the High Court in W.P.No.15051 of 1991, dated 18.08.1995 the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary and nominal muster roll basis from 1988 onwards when the project work at K.M.19/10 of Madras -Mahablipuram Road was started the petitioner was paid every fortnightly for the days he worked and not for the holidays there was no regular post of Boiler Operator in the respondent's office and, therefore, it was not possible to regularize the services of the appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant had put in service for more than 14 years in the respondent Corporation and the order of retrenchment all-of-a-sudden without any reason is unwarranted and illegal the Labour Court, after a careful consideration, held that the appellant was entitled for reinstatement and continuity of service for the reason that the order of retrenchment was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the Labour Court, only after considering the issue of the appellant working for 240 days in the preceding 12 months prior to termination, admitted the appellant's claim under Section 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further contend that the similarly situated persons were reinstated into service as per the orders of the High Court the learned single Judge failed to take into consideration all the above aspects while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.