Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Appellant, TNCSC Employees' Union (the Trade Union), is a trade union which represents member employees of the TNCSC. These employees were recruited through the Employment Exchange as packers, bill clerks and watch men. Such recruitment was either on permanent or seasonal basis. The Trade Union entered into a settlement on 19.09.1991 (the First Settlement) with the TNCSC as per Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(the ID Act). By the First Settlement, the wages of three categories of workers, namely, bill clerks, helpers and watchmen were fixed for the years 1991-1992, http://www.judis.nic.in 6 of 41 1992 – 1993 and 1993 – 1994. In addition, clause 3 of the First Settlement provided for preference to seasonal employees while filling regular vacancies. Such preference was, however, subject to the seasonal employee concerned fulfilling all qualification requirements, albeit age relaxation was to be provided by obtaining the concurrence of the Government. The First Settlement was valid for a period of three years.

“It is agreed that the settlement will be valid for three years.” http://www.judis.nic.in 8 of 41

4. After the Second Settlement, no further settlements or awards relating to the subject matter thereof and, in particular, the preference given to seasonal employees was executed or pronounced. In these facts and circumstances, there are about 1000 vacancies in the TNCSC. For the purpose of filling up vacancies that arise from time to time, panels are prepared periodically. The last panel was prepared in the year 2011 and is said to have been prepared on the basis of the Second Settlement. Thereafter, the TNCSC has not drawn up a panel on the basis of the Second Settlement or otherwise. Instead, the TNCSC issued a notice of termination on 10.05.2010, whereby it purported to terminate the Second Settlement. This resulted in an industrial dispute which is pending before the Conciliation Officer. Meanwhile, the TNCSC addressed a communication on 18.07.2017 to the Regional Manager to publish an advertisement to call for applications in respect of the available vacancies. The writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances. By impugned order dated 05.09.2019, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the Trade Union should approach the Appellate Authority to redress the grievances, including in relation to the alleged violation of the Second Settlement. In effect, the writ petition was rejected on the basis that an effective alternative remedy http://www.judis.nic.in 9 of 41 is available to the Appellant. The said order is impugned by way of this appeal.

7. With reference to the existence of an alternative remedy, he submitted that there are no disputed questions of fact in this case. The parties admittedly entered into the Second Settlement and Clause 5 thereof categorically stipulates that preference should be given to seasonal employees subject to fulfillment of requisite qualifications except for age relaxation. While a notice of termination dated 10.05.2010 was issued by the TNCSC, it is the undisputed position that no settlement was arrived at thereafter and no award was pronounced. Such settlements have been held to be valid and binding even after the expiry of the contractual period or the purported termination thereof by the Supreme Court in D.J. Bahadur. Accordingly, in this case, the dispute pertains to the enforcement of a contract in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is a fit case for the exercise of discretion by this Court and the Writ Court patently erred in failing to exercise discretion. On the above basis, Mr.V.Prakash concluded his submissions by stating that the Second Settlement continues to be valid, binding and operational as on date. http://www.judis.nic.in 16 of 41 Consequently, the TNCSC is obligated to give preference to seasonal workers in its employment, while filling up existing vacancies.

10. Thus, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Second Settlement is no longer enforcible. He further submitted that any disputes with regard to the enforcement of the Second Settlement should be referred to courts set up under the ID Act and therefore the Writ Court was fully justified in refusing to exercise discretion.

11. By way of rejoinder, the learned senior counsel, Mr.V.Prakash, contended that the TNCSC cannot unilaterally decide that the Second Settlement is void or unenforceable. He pointed out that the Appellant Union represents about 57% of the total workforce and, therefore, does not represent a minority view. As regards the judgment in Umadevi and A.Uma Rani vs. Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112, he pointed out that the ratio of the said judgments would not apply to a settlement under Section 12(3) of the ID Act. He also pointed out that the settlement is bilateral and cannot http://www.judis.nic.in 19 of 41 be unilaterally terminated by the TNCSC. He further submitted that the members of the Appellant union accepted seasonal employment on the basis of the Second Settlement, which assured them preference while permanent vacancies are filled up. Thus, they accepted employment on seasonal basis with the legitimate expectation that they would be provided a preference as and when regular vacancies are filled up. After providing services for several years on the basis of the Second Settlement, the TNCSC cannot renege on the settlement terms at this juncture.