Madras High Court
Commissioner, Tiruvallur ... vs Presiding Officer, First Additional ... on 7 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002)IILLJ1147MAD
Author: A.K. Rajan
Bench: A.K. Rajan
JUDGMENT A.K. Rajan, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed against the common award passed by the First Additional Labour Court setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the workers who are the second respondent in all the writ petitions. The second respondent in all the writ petitions were employees of the petitioner, Tiruvallur Municipality. Originally they were employed as gang mazdoors from December 1, 1988 to March 25, 1992. On March 25, 1992, all of them were terminated from service on the grounds that they were only employed on daily wages they were temporary employees and they were performing the work based on the estimated funds and that once the estimated funds are exhausted there was no work available for them and therefore, they had to be terminated. The case of the writ-petitioner/ municipality is that the workers were only temporary employees working on daily wages for a specific purpose of a particular project and they knew objectively well even at the time of the appointment that they would lose their work at the time when the project would be over and therefore, it is not as if they were made as permanent employees and the promise is not kept.
2. When the second respondent for all the writ-petitioners/workers approached the learned Labour Court, the Labour Court has held that even assuming that all these persons were not appointed on temporary basis, since they were working from December, 1988 to March 1992, admittedly they have been working more than 240 days in a year and therefore, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply and in view of the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of. the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination which is in the nature of retrenchment is illegal and therefore, the Labour Court has set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement of the workers. Against that award, these writ petitions have been, filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are no permanent posts in which the workers can be fixed and they were working temporarily and therefore, they cannot be made permanent and hence, the order of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent in all these writ petitions submitted that as per Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Act No. 46 of 1981), (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 46 of 1981), this Act applies to every industrial establishment, not seasonal in character, in which not less than 50 workers were employed on any day of the preceeding 12 months. According to Section 3(1) of the Act No. 46 of 1981, by operation of this Act, permanent status shall be conferred on any workman who is continuing in service for a period of 480 days in a period of two years continuously. The Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion and therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5. On the perusal of the award of the Labour Court, it is clear that these workers were admittedly working on daily wages from December 1, 1988 to March 25, 1992 continuously. Therefore, there is no doubt that they were working in this municipality for more than 480 days within a period of two years, Therefore, the provision of the Act No. 46 of 1981 is fulfilled with and therefore, they are entitled to the status of permanent workers in the Municipality. Undoubtedly, the Municipality also is an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, Tiruvallur Municipality is an industrial establishment. By combined reading of the Industrial Disputes Act and Act No.46 of 1981 these workers were entitled to get permanent status. The Labour Court has rightly given that status. There is no illegality in the order of award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.