Madras High Court
T.Selvam vs The Management on 26 April, 2022
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:26.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD).No.22588 of 2015
T.Selvam
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Dindigul Region,
Bye Pass Road,
Dindigul.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Trichy.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the
second respondent Labour Court relating to the impugned award dated
06.02.2015 in I.D. No. 166 of 2006 of the second respondent, quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate
the petitioner in service with back wages and continuity of service and all
other attendant benefits and award cost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
For Petitioner : Ms. D.Geetha
For Respondents : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah (R1)
Labour Court (R2)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned award, dated 06.02.2015 in I.D. No.
166 of 2006 of the second respondent and consequently to direct the first
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages and
with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was employed as
a Helper in the first respondent's Corporation from 01.06.1993 and
thereafter the petitioner was rendering service without any break. The
first respondent is a State Transport Corporation having its Head Office
at Dindigul and the Corporation is having canteen for its employees. The
petitioner was allotted to do the work, such as, cutting vegetables,
preparing tea and coffee, supplying food items, to provide tea to the
employees and office staff of the first respondent. The petitioner was
paid daily wages, disbursed once in a month. Originally, he was paid Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
150/-, thereafter, it was increased to Rs.300/-, then to Rs.450/- and then
to Rs.750/-. The first respondent obtained the petitioner's signature in
the salary register, whenever salary was disbursed. The first respondent
also maintained a bonus register. The petitioner has completed 240 days
in 12 calendar months all the remaining years of the service.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that since the first respondent
ought to have regularized the petitioner's service and made him
permanent, after completion of 480 days. The petitioner was regularly
demanding the first respondent to regularize his services. The first
respondent agreed to regularize, but has not granted any regularization.
Instead of regularising his service, the petitioner was orally terminated
from service by the first respondent with effect from 03.02.2003. The
first respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner stating the
reason for termination and hence the retrenchment is illegal. The request
of the petitioner to reinstate was denied. Therefore, the petitioner has
raised I.D.No.166 of 2006 before the second respondent.
4. In I.D.No.166 of 2006, the petitioner has examined himself as a
witness and marked 9 documents on his side. The first respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
disputed the fact that the petitioner has rendered continuous service from
the date of joining. Hence, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner. But
all the documents to prove the continuous service were in the possession
of the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition in
I.A.No.403 of 2009 in I.D.No.166 of 2006, with a prayer to direct the
first respondent to produce the documents viz., attendance register, wage
register, night time bun supply register from the year 1993. The first
respondent contested the I.A.No.403 of 2009. The second respondent
after hearing both sides, allowed the I.A.No.403 of 2009 and directed the
first respondent to produce the documents viz., attendance register, wage
register, night time bun supply register from the year 1993. But the first
respondent did not produce the documents before the second respondent.
In the meanwhile, after hearing both sides, the second respondent has
passed an impugned award dated 06.02.2015 in I.D.No.166 of 2006,
thereby dismissing the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present
writ petition is filed.
5. The second respondent has not filed any counter, but relied on
the counter filed before the Labour Court. The contention of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
Management is that the second respondent has no locus standi to raise
any industrial dispute, since he was not appointed as a full-time regular
employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a
Judgment rendered in The President, Srirangam vs The Presiding
Officer, Labour reported in 1996(2) IILLJ 216 Mad.
6. In the impugned order, the Labour Court has held that the initial
burden of proof that the employee has completed 240 days is on the
employee. In the present case, since the petitioner has not proved that he
has completed 240 days, he is not entitled for claim. Aggrieved over the
said reason, the present writ petition has been filed by the individual.
The claim of the petitioner is that even the petitioner has preferred
I.A.No.403 of 2009 before the Labour Court, directing the Management
to submit the registers, in order to prove that he has rendered 240 days in
the first respondent's Management. In spite of Court's order, the first
respondent has not produced any records before the Court, to substantiate
that the petitioner has worked for 240 days.
7. The contention of the Management is that the petitioner was
working as a daily wage employee and he was engaged to cut vegetables
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
and bring tea and coffee to the employees. Since it is not considered as a
sanctioned vacant post and the petitioner was appointed in a daily wage
employment, the petitioner is not entitled to seek permanency and
regularization of service. Moreover, presently, the canteen is let out for
lease and in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek
permanency. As on date the Management is not running any canteen on
its own, but let out the canteen on out sourcing basis and hence, the claim
against the Management cannot be substantiated.
8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that since the
petitioner was working as a daily wage employee in an unsanctioned
post, the petitioner is not entitled to get permanency.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that atleast the
respondents shall allow the petitioner to continue the service. For which
the respondent submitted that the canteen was let out on outsourcing
basis and the first respondent cannot demand the person who is running
the canteen to allow the petitioner to continue in service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
10. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit a petition to the
person who has taken the canteen on lease / out sourcing basis seeking to
continue the service or fresh appointment and the said person shall
consider the petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner cannot
seek for any permanency.
11. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
26.04.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PNM
To
1.The Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2.The Sub Collector,
Padmanabapuram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Tashildar,
Vilavankode, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
S.SRIMATHY, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
W.P(MD)No.22588 of 2015
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
