LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-170

MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM DIVISION I) LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

Decided On July 05, 2018
Management Of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division I) Ltd Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this intra Court Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant Management challenging the award of the Labour Court, Cuddalore, dated 31.03.1998 made in ID No.31 of 1994. The said Industrial Dispute was raised by the 2nd respondent workman through the President CITU, challenging his termination from service.

(2.) According to the 1st respondent, he was appointed as a driver in the appellant Corporation on 28.04.1992 and he was also given training in the Road Transport Institute, Gummidipoondi. It is the further case of the 1st respondent employee that he has been working continuously from 28.04.1992, as a driver in the Panruti Branch of the Appellant Corporation. He was paid a daily wage of Rs. 48/-, when he joined service of the Corporation and when he was terminated, he was paid a daily wage of Rs. 70/-. According the workman, he was not allowed to work on 11.06.1993 and he was informed that he has been removed from service. Complaining that he has been orally terminated from service, the workman raised the Industrial Dispute.

(3.) The said Industrial Dispute was resisted by the appellant Management contending that there was no relationship of Master and Servant between the appellant and the 2nd Respondent respondent workman and therefore, he has no right to raise the Industrial Dispute. It was also contended that the 2nd respondent was only employed as a temporary driver in the leave vacancy and when the permanent drivers joined duty, the respondent was not appointed in another post but he has been only working as a driver on daily wages. No approval was obtained by the Manager of Panturi Branch, to engage the services of the 2nd respondent as a permanent workman. His services were utilised only in emergency situations. On the above contentions, the Management claimed that the very Industrial Dispute is not maintainable.