Madras High Court
R.Navaneethakrishnan vs The Management on 3 December, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
R.Navaneethakrishnan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Management
Madurai District Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
187, North Veli Street
Madurai-1
2.The Management
Dindigul District Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Trichy Road
Dindigul
3.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Madurai ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 21.06.2011, passed in W.P.(MD) No.4176 of 2011, on the file of
this Court.
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.Mohan Kumar
for Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R1 & R2
R3 – Court
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Challenging the order, dated 21.06.2011, passed by this Court in
W.P.(MD) No.4176 of 2011, the writ petitioner / workman has preferred this
writ appeal.
2. The case of the workman is that he along with other workmen
were engaged as daily wagers under the Madurai District Central Co-operative
Bank Limited, Madurai. Initially, the Dindigul District Central Co-operative
Bank Limited was under the control of Madurai District Central Co-operative
Bank Limited and after bifurcation, the Dindigul District Central Co-operative
Bank Limited was formed. According to the workmen, they were denied
employment by the Management without regularizing their services on the
ground that the workmen were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange
and that Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 has
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
not not been followed and hence, their appointment itself is illegal.
Challenging the denial of employment, an industrial dispute was raised in
I.D.Nos.76, 78, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 94 of 1991 before the Labour Court,
Madurai. The conciliation took place for arriving at amicable settlement ended
in vain and the Labour Court, by order dated 27.12.2010, rejected the relief
sought for by the workmen holding that no records were produced by the
workmen to establish that they have been appointed on permanent basis.
Challenging the same, the workmen filed the writ petitions. This Court, after
hearing both sides, by order dated 21.06.2011, dismissed the writ petitions
confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. Challenging the same, one
of the workmen, namely, Navaneethakrishnan has preferred this writ appeal.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned
Single Judge has proceeded to confirm the order passed by the Labour Court
on the basis that the workmen have not produced any records to establish
that they have been employed on daily wage basis continuously without any
break in service and worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. It is
further observed that new documents cannot be introduced in the writ petition
stage and therefore, the request for accepting the additional documents before
the Writ Court was rightly rejected, more so, in the light of the decision in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
Madras Aluminium Company Ltd., Mettur Dam vs. Labour Court,
Coimbatore and another, reported in 1992 (2) LLN 101.
4. A Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in Manager, Reserve
Bank of India, Bangalore vs. S.Mani and Others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC
100, has held as follows:
“28.....The initial burden of proof was on the
workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of
service. The Tribunal did not consider the question from
that angle. It held that the burden of proof was upon the
Appellant on the premise that they have failed to prove
their plea of abandonment of service stating:
"It is admitted case of the parties that
all the 1st parties under the references CR No.
1/92 to 11/92 have been appointed by the 2nd
party as ticca mazdoors. As per the 1st parties,
they had worked continuously from April, 1980
to December, 1982. But the 2nd party had
denied the above said claim of continuous service
of the 1st parties on the ground that the 1st
parties has not been appointed as regular
workmen but they were working only as
temporary part time workers as ticca mazdoor
and their services were required whenever
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
necessary arose that too on the leave vacancies
of regular employees. But as strongly contended
by the counsel for the 1st party, since the 2nd
party had denied the above said claim of
continuous period of service, it is for the 2nd party
to prove through the records available with them
as the relevant records could be available only
with the 2nd party."
The Tribunal, therefore, accepted that the
Appellant had denied the Respondents' claim as regard
their continuous service."
5. It is no doubt true that the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 will have a major
role to play and it has overriding effect above the Tamil Nadu Cooperative
Societies Act, 1983 as 1981 Act pertains to service conditions. The employees
would have filed an application to call for the documents from the employer, if
the employee do not have the documents to establish their case and to call for
documents, there are ample provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the Labour Court has got wider powers to look into those documents
in terms of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, without
doing so, mere seeking relief, as prayed for in the present case, cannot be
acceded to. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court as well
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
as the Writ Court have rightly come to the conclusion that there is no record
produced by the employees to establish that they have been appointed on
regular / permanent basis and rightly rejected their plea. That apart, since
the Labour Court is the fact finding authority, the Writ Court is not an
Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence or accept new evidence /
documents to come to a different conclusion. In such circumstances, we do
not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court as well
as the Writ Court and accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
03.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
To:
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.780 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
03.12.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
