Madras High Court
The Arumuganeri Salt Workers ... vs The Presiding Officer on 9 March, 2021
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
The Arumuganeri Salt Workers Co-operative
Production and Sales Society Limited
Railway Feeder Road, Arumuganeri,
Thoothukudi District through its
Special Officer C.Chandrasekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The District Vice President,
District Co-operative Employees Society(CITU)
16, Masilamanipuram 3rd Street,
Thoothukudi-628 003. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings in ID No.87 of 2005 dated 14.09.2011 on the file of the 1st
respondent and quash the same.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R2 : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R1 : Court
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed in ID
No.87 of 2005, dated 14.09.2011 by the 1st respondent and to quash the
same.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Society was
founded in the year 1949 with an object to manufacture and sell the salt
for the benefit of its members, who are salt workers themselves.
Presently, the Society is administered by the petitioner as Special Officer,
deputed from the Co-operative Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.
While so, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.87
of 2005 before the first respondent seeking arrears of salary and yearly
increment of certain employees working with the petitioner Society. The
first respondent/Labour Court passed an award against the petitioner in
respect of the claims of three employees viz., S.Ganesaperumal, S.Ponraj
and J.Kandasamy. The said 3 employees were working since 03.03.1998,
09.06.1997 and 20.04.1998 respectively and their appointments were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
through Employment Exchange, but direct appointment without any
public advertisement, and were irregular appointments. Further, the
petitioner has averred that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.86 Co-operative
F&CP, dated 12.03.2001, the judgment of this Court in Justin's case and
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Umarani's case, the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a direction directing the
regularization of the employees regularly appointed from 08.07.1980 till
11.03.2001 at the minimum scale of pay determined with effect from
01.09.2007. Accordingly, the appointments of the said three employees
were also regularized, by fixing their pay scale with effect from
01.09.2007.
3.Even prior to such regularization, the aforesaid industrial dispute
was raised for claiming increment from the date on which they completed
one year in service. In fact, the Board has made such irregular
appointments and regularized such appointments and also acted against
the interest of the Co-operative Societies. When the petitioner Society
was brought under the administration of the Special Officer of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
Government of Tamil Nadu, the said officer refused to recognize such
regularization. The appointments of the three employees were
regularized by the proceedings of the Joint Registrar, dated 28.02.2007,
25.06.2007 and 28.02.2007 respectively. Therefore, the said employees
are entitled to get the increment only by taking into consideration the
regularization of service in the minimum pay scale, dated 07.09.2007,
whereas, the second respondent was insisting that the increment to be
paid to the said employees from the completion of one year service of the
three employees original employment. The first respondent has passed
an order directing the petitioner to pay increment to the said three
employees on completion of one year from the date of original
appointment. Challenging the said award, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
though the appointments of the members of the second respondent were
irregular, such appointments were regularized in the year 2007, by fixing
the minimum scale of pay. Without any scheme or by-law, the members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
of the second respondent claiming only increment and also without
considering the said judgments, the first respondent/Labour Court has
passed an award in favour of the members of the second respondent,
which is an sustainable. Hence, he prays for allowing the present writ
petition.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that as per 18(1) and 12(3) settlements, which were
marked as Ex.W.18, Ex.W.19, the said three employees are entitled for
annual increment on completion of one year of service of their original
employment. After considering Ex.W.18 and Ex.W.19, the Labour Court
has passed an award in favour of the second respondent members, which
need not be interfered with. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the present
writ petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
7.Before this Court venture into the merits of the contention raised
on either side, it would be first necessary to bear in mind the scope and
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
while examining the correctness of the award of the Labour Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in catena of decisions, has held that normally a
writ court should not interfere with the award of the Labour Court, unless
the award is perverse. It has been further held that if the award is not
irrational or perverse, the High Court should not interfere with the
reasons in the award. Further, it has been held that this Court should not
re-appreciate the evidence placed before the Labour Court and substitute
its own conclusions, merely because this Court is of the opinion that a
different conclusion could have been arrived at on the available evidence.
Bearing this legal principle in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the
correctness of the impugned award.
8.The issue involved in the writ petition is whether the members of
the second respondent are entitled to get annual increment from the
completion of one year service of their original employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
9.Admittedly, the members of the second respondent are working
in the petitioner Society since 1998 and 1997 onwards and their
respective appointments were not through Employment Exchange, but
direct appointment, without any public advertisement, which were
irregular appointments. Further, it is not in dispute that the members of
the second respondent service were regularized in the year 2007, based
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umarani's case,
whereas, the members of the second respondent claims that they are
entitled to get annual increment from the completion of one year service
of their original appointment. A perusal of Ex.W.18 and Ex.W.19 reveal
that the said three employees are entitled for annual increment on
completion of one year service of their original employment. However,
there is no Scheme available for granting annual increment to the
employees.
10.In the absence of any Scheme or any By-law claiming annual
increment from the date of completion of one year of service of their
original employment, the Labour Court had erred in passing the award in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
favour of the members of the second respondent, which is an sustainable
one. Hence, the order of the labour Court dated 14.09.2011 passed in
I.D.No.87 of 2005 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
09.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W .P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Ns
W.P.(MD)No.4000 of 2012
09.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
