LAWS(MAD)-1998-11-35

D SELVARAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On November 26, 1998
D. SELVARAJ Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17974 of 1995 dated 14.11.1997.

(2.) THE appellant before us is the writ petitioner and he filled the writ petition challenging the order of the Labour court Vellore in I.D.No.305 of 1993 dated 7.6.1995.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was continuously engaged by the second respondent from August, 1983 and the fact that the Employment Exchange has not sponsored his name is a ground for termination of his service. It was also pleaded that three other employees who were terminated on the same ground have filed claim petitions in I.D.Nos.299/93, 300/93 and 301/93 on the filed claim presiding Officer, Labour Court. Vellore and they were granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but the petitioner was denied the relief. LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions(1) Nayagarh Co-op, Central Bank v. Narayan (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 112), (2) S.Thangappan and Others v. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep, by the Commissioner & Secretary, Rural Development, etc. (1986 TLNJ 153) (3) Punjab L.D.& Ltd, etc. etc. v. P.O. Lab Court, etc, etc, (1990 (2) LLJ SC (FB) 70), (4) D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259), (5) The Pre. SRI. Ran, Co-op.U.B.Ltd. v. The P.O.L.C. madurai, K. Nagarajan (1996(1) LLJ 216), (6) The Maduramangallam Co-operative Agricultural BankLtd. Etc. v. K.S. Selvarani and Others (1996 Writ L.R.676) and (7) Excise Supdt. Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao (1996)6 SCC 216) and submitted that his termination was not valid. LEARNED counsel for the appellant also relied upon the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and submitted that the work done by the petitioner would fall within the scope of unskilled office work within the meaning of section 2(i) of the said Act, and therefore, it is not necessary that the name of the petitioner should be sponsored by the Employment Exchange.