LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-577

RAJAN A V Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On July 28, 2008
RAJAN A V Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKMAN has filed this Writ Appeal against the order, dated October 19, 2006, passed in W. P. No. 2774/2001, 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 August 16, 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. 15051/1991 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. 734/1997, which was resisted by the second respondent management, on the grounds that the petition for regularisation 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. 15051/1991, dated August 18, 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-Mahabalipuram 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 regularise the services of the appellant.

(3.) BASED on the above pleadings, the labour Court, holding that the appellant had been in continuous employment for more than 13 years, passed an award directing the management to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and other benefits.