Madras High Court
The Rajapalayam Municipality, ... vs The Presiding Officer Additional ... on 27 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2001(90)FLR298], (2001)ILLJ1678MAD, (2001)2MLJ173
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.233 and 248 of 1987, the above writ petition have been filed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erroneously allowed the claim petitions. According to the petitioner, the second respondent in respective writ petitions are NMR Coolies engaged seasonally and they were not regular and permanent employee of the petitioner Municipality. Their only duty is to remove garbage accumulated in the reservoir. Their services were never utilised to operate electrical and diesel motor pump sets. They are paid only daily wages. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon on Exs.M.l, document of electricity connected relative to water supply scheme and Ex.M.2, horse power of the motor mentioned in Ex.M1. He further submits that one Mr.G. Ravindran, MW1 has been examined and on his evidence it shows that the 2nd respondent in respective writ petitions were employed during winter for cleaning and removal of garbage floating in the water so as to ensure smooth flow of water in the river. From the evidence of WW2 and WW3 it is clear that the respondents have been employed for cleaning and maintenance of pipes during the winter season. But the labour court ignoring the same awarded reinstatement of the second respondents in respective writ petitions writ backwages. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the second respondents in respective writ petitions have not come forward with a petition under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for vacating the interim stay granted by this court. This itself shows that they were employed somewhere else.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions to substantiate his contention that daily rated workers are not eligible for regular appointments.
(1) Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and another v. Veer Singh Rajput and others, 1998 (2) LLJ 627 ; (2) Himanshu Kumar Vidyathi v. State of Bihar, 1997 (90) FJR 463(SC); (3) Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pragaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1995 (1) LLJ 927(SC); (4) Balwinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1999 (II) LLJ 1116.
4. In Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pragaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1995 (1) LLJ 927 it is held that, " Eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period should not be permitted to overreach the law. Requirement of rules of selection through Public Service Commission cannot be substituted by humane consideration."
5. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1999 (II) LLJ 1116, it held that " A daily wager, as the petitioner was in the case, particularly in the absence of any sanctioned post, could not stake any claim for permanent employment."
6. In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and another v. Veer Singh Rajput and others, 1998 (II) LLJ 627(SC), it is held that ".....If corporation appoints any casual workers or daily rated workers these casual labourers who were discharged from service should be considered for appointment on daily wages in preference to others by waving age bar if necessary."
7. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyathi v. State of Bihar, 1997 Vol.90 FJR 465 (SC) it is held that " When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retreachment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retreachment", therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retreachment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary."
8. It is not in dispute that the second respondents in respective writ petitions are daily wages employees and their work is only seasonal. But, the Labour Court has passed an award only on the ground that they were employed more than 4 years and they should be given employment with backwages. However, in view of the above cited judgments this court has held that daily rated workers have no right whatsoever to claim regular employment.
9. Following the above said judgments, the award is set aside. However, as observed the Apex court in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and another v. Veer Singh Rajput and others, 1998 II LLJ 627, a direction is issued to the petitioner municipality, in case of any appointment from daily rated workers, preference should be given to the second respondents in respective writ petitions by waiving the age bar, if necessary. Liberty is given to the respondents to accept the appointments if they so desire.
10. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.