MANAGEMENT, THE SALEM DISTRICT Vs. LABOUR INSPECTOR AUTHORITY UNDER THE TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a District level Co-operative Society involved primarily in procurement and distribution of milk and milk Products. Originally, the second respondent herein was employed under the appellant as a casual labourer. The second respondent filed an application under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent and Status of Workman) Act, 1981, seeking permanent status on the ground that he has completed 480 days of service in 24 continuous calendar months, and the said application was ordered by the Labour Inspector on 15.05.2001 directing the appellant Management to confer permanent status on the second respondent from 21.08.1999. Aggrieved against the order, the appellant has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23842 of 2001 before this Court and by order dated 13.04.2010, the same was dismissed. The name of the second respondent was recommended and included in the list for regularizing the casual labourers and sent to the Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai.

(2.) Earlier, on 03.06.2007, it was found that the second respondent was keeping excess milk packets in his vehicle which was more than intended for delivery. In view of the said incident, the second respondent was not permitted to work from 08.06.2007 and it was informed on 20.06.2007 to the Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai that his name was not recommended to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was referred for adjudication in I.D.No.109/2009, and the first respondent has passed an Award dated 01.02.2014, directing the appellant/Management to reinstate the second respondent with 50% of back wages. Hence, a writ petition was filed before this Court in W.P.No.24801 of 2014 by the Management and this Court, by order dated 30.09.2015, dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the appellant Management to comply with the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the first respondent, within a period of eight weeks, subject to deduction of earlier payment deposited before the Labour Court. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Management.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have taken into consideration of the fact that the appellant lost confidence on the second respondent and hence keeping the second respondent in the work, who was only a casual labourer, will be a further loss to the appellant and it would also be detrimental to the interest of the appellant-Society. Stating so, he prayed for allowing this writ petition.