Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Aggrieved against the above orders of the first respondent, the petitioner has come forward with these Writ Petitions.

6. In both the Writ Petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is whether an irregular appointment of the respective second respondents in the petitioner's society would entitle them to invoke the jurisdiction of the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Act ?

7. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of his Lordship Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan reported in Tindivanam Co-operative Housing Society Limited, rep. by its Special Officer, Tindivanam v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Channai and Anr., 2003 W.L.R.273 and the First Bench decision of this Court reported in L.Justine and Anr. v. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Chennai, 2002 (4) CTC 385 in support of his submissions. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that even if it were to be held that the appeal under Section 41(2) of the Act was maintainable, when the irregularity in the appointment would justify the order of the termination, the non-payment of one month notice pay would not by itself vitiate the order of termination and at best, the liability on the petitioner would only be payment of wages from the date of termination till such payment is made. The learned counsel pointed out that while granting interim stay of the orders of the first respondent impugned in the Writ Petitions, the petitioner was directed to pay wages of both the second respondents for the period from April 2000 to January, 2001 within a period of four weeks and that the said order was also duly complied with. In support of the said submission reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench reported in State Bank of India, rep. by the Agent, Coonoor Branch v. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Anr., 1975 (1) LLJ 159 as well as the one reported in K.R. Krishnamurthi and Ors. v. Management of Madurai Sourasthra Cooperative Bank, Ltd., Madurai and Anr., 1987 (2) LLN 301. In both the Division Bench Judgments, it has been held that where a reasonable cause is found, if the statutory notice had not been given or the wages in lieu thereof was not paid, the wages due to the employee up to date including notice pay will have to be paid and that that would cure the said defect.

9. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was also placed upon apart from Tindivanam Co-operative Housing Society Limited, rep. by its Special Officer, Tindivanam v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Channai and Anr., 2003 W.L.R. 273 and L.Justine and Anr. v. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Chennai, 2002 (4) CTC 385, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and Anr. v. Veer Singh Rajput and Ors., ; K.R. Krishnamurthi and Ors. v. Management ofMadurai Sourashtra Cooperative Bank Ltd., and Anr., 2000 (1) LLN 1129 and Management, Salem Co-operative Housing Society, Etc., Salem v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Ors., 2001 (1) LLN 378.

10. In the judgment reported in Tindivanam Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Rep. by its Special Officer, Tindivanam v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and Anr., 2003 W.L.R. 273, the concerned workman was appointed in the Co-operative Society without permission from the Registrar as contemplated in Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and without consulting the Employment Exchange. The learned Judge followed the First Bench judgment of this Court reported in L.Justine and Anr. v. The Registrar of Co-op, Societies, Chennai, 2002 (4) CTC 385 and held as under in para 12:

23. In the case of the second respondent in W.P.No. 21617 of 2000, after the initial order dated 4.8.1998, providing for engagement of daily wage basis, he was issued with an order dated 31.5.1999 to the effect that he would be paid consolidated wage of Rs. 1200 per month from 1.6.1999 as per the decision taken in the Management Committee's Resolution No. 21.

24. Therefore, the above orders by which the respective second respondents came to be employed in the petitioner's society disclose that their appointment was not pursuant to any sponsorship through Employment Exchange nor was their employment made in compliance with Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. None of the above said proceedings disclose that their employment was to any notified vacancy nor by absorbing the regular process of appointments which is normally made in the employment of person in the services of the petitioner society. In other words, the appointment of the respective second respondents cannot be characterised as merely an irregular appointment, but will have to be construed only as an illegal one. If that be the only conclusion that can be reached based on the available documents placed before the first respondent, the question for consideration is whether they had acquired the status of an employee in the petitioner society in order to maintain their appeal under Section 41(2) of the Act. The emphatic answer to the said question would only be 'No'. If that is the irresistible conclusion to be reached as regards the status of the respective second respondents by virtue of the orders issued by the petitioner to them while allowing them to render service in the petitioner society during the relevant period, going by the well settled proposition of law laid down by the First Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385, and the ratio of the judgment of His Lordship Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan, in the judgment reported in Tindivanam Co-operative Housing Society Limited, rep. by its Special Officer, Tindivanam v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Channai and Anr., 2003 W.L.R. 273, it will have to be held that the appeals preferred by the respective second respondents before the first respondent were not maintainable.