Madras High Court
L & T. Mcneil Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Principal Labour ... on 15 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001)IILLJ1655MAD
Author: R. Jayasimha Babu
Bench: R. Jayasimha Babu
JUDGMENT R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. These two batches of writ petitions are filed against the award by which the claim of seven persons, who are admittedly casual workmen for reinstatement was rejected, monetary compensation however was awarded to them.
2. The record before the Labour Court was an extremely slender one, the oral evidence being only that of the workmen who merely stated that they had joined in the year 1989, and their services were terminated in April 1991, after a period of roughly 14 months during which they were paid a sum of Rs. 750 per month. According to them, that amount was calculated for the days for which they had actually worked, no payment being made for Sundays. It was admitted by them that they were not given work on all days, and they were free to stay away from work, if they did not want to work. It was further admitted by them that numerous benefits available to the permanent workmen were not available to them by reason of their being casual workmen. It is their further case that they did not have to punch time-card, that their names were not in any muster-roll, and that they merely signed the vouchers when they received payment. It is their further case that no appointment order was issued, nor was any order of termination issued.
3. In the counter-statement filed by the employer substantially what was said by the workmen was also what was contended by them. It was also their case that the workmen were merely casual employees, that they were not engaged in duty continuously, that they have worked only when they were so directed, that they have no obligation to work or to report for duty.
4. The employer not having specifically disputed their claim that they had worked between the dates mentioned by them which is a span of a period of more than 240 days, it is reasonable to infer that they had indeed worked for 240 days. That fact would entitle them to be treated as persons who can claim the protective umbrella of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, that section being applicable to all categories of workmen.
5. The fact that the workmen are casual workmen, therefore, does not come in the way of their claim being entertained by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, having regard to the fact that the period for which they had worked was relatively short, the fact that their employment was casual, and there was no assurance of work for them each day, instead of directing reinstatement as casual workmen which would only put them in the same position in which they were earlier, directed that they be paid a lump sum compensation by giving them an amount very much in excess of what they would have received had they been provided work for each day between the date of termination and the date of the award.
6. Counsel for the workmen submitted that casual workmen are entitled to the protection of the Act. There is no dispute over that proposition. The employer's counsel only contends that there was a discretion in the Labour Court with regard to the moulding of the relief, and the relief so moulded was the one that was the most appropriate in this case.
7. The Labour Court has appreciated the evidence that the parties have placed before it, and, after having applied its mind to the facts, has granted a relief which it thought was appropriate. Some of the observations made by it, however, are not quite in order. Its observation that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been violated may not be warranted, as the employer had not taken the specific stand that the workmen had not worked for 240 days.
8. If the workmen have any right by reason of having worked for 240 days de hors what is provided under this Act, that is a matter which does not come within the purview of the Labour Court. The Labour Court is only concerned with the granting or withholding of the relief permissible under the Act.
9. The relief of reinstatement though as per the normal rule, where permanent workmen or even temporary workmen are concerned, is most appropriate, where casual workmen are involved, by the very nature of their employment they have no assurance that they would be employed for any specified duration. Their temporary employment could not be for any period for which they can look forward to assured work from the employer. Casual workmen have only to report each day and hope that employment would be provided to them on that day. Their not going to the place of the employer will not result in any penalty as they are not assured of work daily. This kind of employment, therefore, cannot be treated on par with the temporary and permanent employment. The employers are not bound to provide work to the casual workmen, unless they choose to and there is work for the day. Directing reinstatement of casual workmen, who had worked as such for a relatively short period of time would only mean that their names would once again be included in the list of casual workmen, putting them in the same position they were earlier where they would only report for the employment with the hope of being provided with work and no more. Lump sum monetary payment in the circumstances would enable them to use that fund in a useful manner. It would help them to either improve their own skills or to look for better employment elsewhere. The relief so provided was one which was in the circumstances appropriate.
10. I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The writ petitions filed by the workmen, as also by the employer are dismissed.