Madras High Court
Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras vs Workmen, Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. ... on 4 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)IILLJ1008MAD
Author: T. Jayarama Chouta
Bench: T. Jayarama Chouta
JUDGMENT
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of cerlioraii and call for the records connected with I.D. No. 401 of 1984 on the file of the second respondent and quash the award, dated March 9, 1988, passed in the above case.
2. Necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit of one P. Subrainoni, calling himself as the Deputy General Manager and Secretary of the Petitioner. The petitioner is the company registered under the Companies Act and has its falctory at Madhavaram, wherein it has been engaged in the manufacture of chemicals by engaging 51 workmen. Depending upon the exigencies of work the company used to engage the services of casual labourers. The Standing Orders of the company itself recognises the category of casual employees. Three, workers, namely' A. G. Murali, A. Sulthan and G. L. N. Prasad were employed as casual workmen for the post of watchmen according to the exigencies then prevailed. When they came to know that the company was going to make alternative arrangements for effective security to private agency, namely, Globe Detective Agency, according to the petitioner, these workmen left their services on September 1, 1982. Even earlier, they were never employed continuously but whenever additional watchmen were required for a few days their services were utilised.
3. Though the workmen themselves terminated the services by not offering themselves for casual employment. they raisect an industrial dispute in the month of May, 1983 alleging that their services were terminated on September 1, 1982, orally. The said dispute was referred for adjudication by the Government of Tamil Nadu 5 by an order, dated February 4, 1984. In the Labour Court on behalf of the workmen three witnesses were examined and on behalf of the management the deponent of this affidavit has been examined, but he was not cross-examined. The specific case of the management was that after August 31, 1982, the three workmen did not turn up for duty as casual employees. That being so, it was submitted that it was not a case of retrenchment but that it is a case where the workmen themselves had terminated their employment. However, the second respondent by its award, dated March 9, 1988, in I.D. No. 401 of 1984 passed the award declaring that the non-employment of three workers has not been justified and directed them to reinstate with continuity of service with backwages but without other attendant benefits. The said award has been challenged in this writ petition.
4. Even though the respondents have been served, there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent.
5. I have heard the learned Advocate Sri Sanjai Mohan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Even though number of contentions were raised in the writ petition, the learned Advocate confined his arguments on the ground that the management has failed to show that the above workmen have worked more than 240 days to claim the benefit or S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour proceeded on the basis that the workers are entitled to the benefit under the provision of S. 25F of the Act and straightaway directed the management to reinstate them with continuity of service.
6. In support of the above submission, the learned Advocate has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court reported in Mount Meltur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Second Additional, Labour Court (1985-II-LU-505). He has invited my attention to the head note, which lo reads as follows at pp 507-508 :
"In a case where to the satisfactions of the Court it is established that there was need and necessity for retrenchment in the industry and the management for valid and legal reasons decided to retrench, the Labour Court would have to consider whether, it will he just and reasonable to order reinstatement while it gives a finding that S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has not been complied with and it cannot be said that the Labour Court has no option except to order reinstatement with back-wages in all cases of non-compliance with S. 25-F, even in a case where the Labour Court finds that there was cause for retrenchment and that the retrenchment has been bona fide. In cases where there is need for retrenchment and the management have acted bonafide in effecting retrenchment, non-compiance with S. 25F will give the Labour uourt a discretion either to order reinstatement or payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, depending on the facts and Circumstances of each case. It is not the law that in every case of infringement of S. 25F, the award of reinstatement with back wages is a must by the Labour Court."
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision reported in Crompton Engineering Conpany (Madras) (Private), Ltd. v. Additional Labour Court (1974-I-LLJ-459) (Mad), and pjaced reliance on the following passage at p. 462 :
"There is no principle or provision of laws entitling a casual workman to reinstatement simply because he was so employed on more than one occasion or he so worked for a long period of time. Therefore, such an employee, is not entitled to reinstatement even io if he had been so employed for a long time."
8. On these facts and the decisions cited above, the learned Advocate for the petitioner is submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the case from this point of view and hence it is a fit case where the award should be set aside and the matter should he remanded with a direction to the first respondent to reconsider 20 the question whether instead of reinstatement a compensation could be awarded.
9. There is considerable force in the submission, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that three employees were casual labourers. it has also held that the removal of the workmen was not with any malafide intention but on the contrary that for the purpose of entrusting the said work to the private agency. Under those circumstances, the proper course for the Labour Court would have been to consider the question whether the compensation could be awarded instead of ordering for reinstatement.
10. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the order passed by the Labour Court and remit the matter to the second respondent Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the observations made above. No costs. Consequently, Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 8967 of 1988 is dismissed.