UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS Vs. S SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed chal-lenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 13.1.2004, made in I.D. No. 395 of 1996.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appear-ing for the first respondent had contended that the first respondent had been in continuous employment under the petitioner University and there was no plea raised on behalf of the petitioner University before the second re-spondent Labour Court that the employment of the first respondent was contrary to the ser-vice Rules of the petitioner University. It is not correct to state that the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, excludes those who have not come through the employment exchange. Since the petitioner University has contravened the rele-vant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by its unfair labour practice, it cannot claim that the first respondent has been irregu-larly employed. The rules and regulations of the petitioner University had not been placed before the second respondent Labour Court during the enquiry of the Industrial dispute. No opportunity had been granted to the first re-spondent, when the matter was being heard by the second respondent Labour Court, to meet the contentions raised on behalf of the peti-tioner University before this Court, at this stage. The decisions cited by the learned coun-sel appearing for the petitioner would not be applicable to the present case. Even if the workman had not been employed for a contin-uous period of 240 days, the break in service could not be attributed to him.