R KANDASAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein pertaining to the above I.D.No,4 of 1997 dated 01.02.1999 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner with countinuity of service and backwages and all attendant benefits.) The petitioner aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No,4 of 1997 dated 01.02.1999 has filed the present writ petition. By the impugned award, the labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 27.10.1999. THE case of the petitioner was that he was employed as a Dosa Master in the second respondent hotel and he had worked for more than 6 - years. He was also actively associated with the trade union for the hotel workers. THE Management aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner stopped him from work without any justification.

(3.) THE Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that at the maximum, the worker would have worked for not more than three months in terms of Exs.W1 to W3. Since his name is not found in Ex.M1, Salary Register for January 1992, the Labour Court did not believe that he would have been continuously engaged from the year 1990-1996. Unfortunately, the Labour Court rejected the workman's arguments to draw adverse inference since the wage registers for the year 1990-1996 were not produced and the management had produced only selective registers for few months. THE Labour Court also disbelieved the evidence of W.W.1 and W.W.2 on the ground that they were workmen who were terminated from service by the second respondent and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. THE Labour Court also held that the bonafide certificate by the management dated 06.02.1996 marked as W1 may be genuine but that cannot speak for the service rendered by the workman for the entire six years. THE Labour Court also believed Ex.W1 series which are letters received by the workman in the address of the second respondent management. THE second respondent management contention that he was running a small street shop and given their address for correspondence purpose and that he was not their workman was disbelieved. In any event, even as per the Labour Court's finding that though the workman may not worked for 6 - years, he has certainly worked for more than four months as per the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. THErefore, the Labour Court was wrong in rejecting the case of the workman. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act, 1958, wherein, a service of a workman cannot be dispensed if he had put in 120 days of service within a period of 6 months except for a reasonable cause and that giving such employee one months' notice or wages. Such notice is not contemplated if the workman was dismissed for misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded in an enquiry held for the purpose.