Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent Labour Court relating to its award, dated 20.12.2007, passed in I.D.No.35 of 2002 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein filed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petition in I.D.No.35 of 2002 under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, claiming that he was working as contractual labour from 01.03.1990 onwards and was working till 30.04.1999. Thereafter had worked as regular employee from 01.05.1999 consequent on abolition of contract labour system, based on the report of Justice Khalid commission. In between to the above period, the first respondent was affected by paralysis and hence, he had not turn up to duty from 1.09.1996 to 18.04.1999 and Assistant Medical Officer Mr. Muralidharan of Tuticorin Headquarters Hospital has issued a Medical Certificate for the period from 01.09.1996 to 31.07.1997. And for the period 01.08.1997 to 18.04.1999 Dr.T.Chandrakumar, Medical Officer has issued Medical certificate. The petitioner had permitted the first respondent to work from 19.04.1999 to 30.04.1999 and was removed from service on 03.05.1999 even though the second respondent rendered as Contract Labourer from 01.03.1985 to 30.04.1999 and as regular employee from 01.05.1999 to 03.05.1999. Since the second respondent was not considered by the petitioners on par with the other contract labourers who are working as regular employee with respective status. On the above grounds, the 1st respondent prayed for reinstatement into service with continuity of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis employment and also pay the back wages during the period of non-employment.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent did not appear before the Selection Committee, when the process of permanent absorption was conducted. Moreover, the petitioner absented himself from duty during crucial period, when the petitioners were considering the contract labourers for absorption. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent was admitted in hospital due to paralysis. To substantiate this, he has submitted two medical certificates covering two periods. It is an admitted fact that the 1 st respondent has not appeared before the Selection Committee due to paralysis. Since the 1st respondent had lost the chance, he cannot claim for absorption. The 1 st respondent kept silent during the crucial period and after the recruitment process are over, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner has come up with claim petition for regularization. Moreover the 1st respondent has not worked during the crucial period, in order to calculate the 480 days in 24 calendar months, the candidature cannot be accepted simply because the he was working as contract labour to some other contractor for a brief period, he cannot claim regularization before the petitioner employer based on Justice Khalid Commission. A scheme was formulated and all the contract labourers were absorbed permanently. When the 1st respondent has lost the post, the 1st respondent cannot claim regularization now.

5. Heard M/s.P.Malini for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co., the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Kumar, the Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the records.

6. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents, it is seen that the 1st respondent had submitted two medical certificates issued by the Medical Officers of Tuticorin Headquarters Hospital. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the condition of 480 days as stated in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis scheme. Also the first respondent failed to appear before the Selection Committee for which the first respondent submitted that he was not aware that the Selection Committee was formed and selection process was going on. The reason for not participating in the selection process is because the 1st respondent was not attending the work due to his ailment of paralysis. It is seen that the 1st respondent has submitted the medical certificate to the petitioner authorities, after the Selection Committee has completed the process of selection. Because of the 1st respondent’s illness due to paralysis, the petitioner has lost the right for regularization. Had the 1st respondent appeared before the Selection Committee and explained his illness before the Committee, the petitioner's candidature would be considered as per the settlement terms. The 1 st respondent ought to have taken steps to inform the petitioners institution about his illness through his family members or through somebody.