Madras High Court
The Director vs P.Arunmozhi on 1 June, 2023
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Petition No.11698 of 2004
The Director,
BCG Vaccine Laboratory,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Arunmozhi
2.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial
Tribunal – cum – Labour Court,
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006. … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Honourable
Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Chennai
made in I.D.No.63/2002 on 08.12.2003, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramesh
For Respondent 1 : Mr.P.Rajendhran
Page No.1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
For Respondent 2 : Court
ORDER
The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the
records of the Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum –
Labour Court, Chennai made in I.D.No.63/2002 on 08.12.2003.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:
The first respondent was appointed directly as a Casual Labourer
in the petitioner’s Laboratory w.e.f. 19.06.2000 without reference to the
Employment Exchange and his appointment was periodically extended with
break in service. His service was not extended beyond 31.01.2001, as there
was no requirement of services of casual labour in the section, where he was
posted. He served only for a total period of 174 days. The first respondent
raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Labour Commissioner
(Central) by filing a Petition dated 04.09.2001. The petitioner replied by a
letter dated 31.10.2001 that (1) The petitioner's organisation is not an
industry and it is sub-institution of Central Government under administrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
control of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and hence, Industrial
Disputes Act is not applicable and that (2) All employees are
governed by Central Service Rules. However, the dispute was referred to the
second respondent/Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court. The Tribunal has passed an award dated 08.12.2003, directing re-
instatement of first respondent with full backwages and benefits. Aggrieved
by the said award dated 08.12.2003, the petitioner has come forward with the
present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent
was engaged as Daily Rated Casual Labourer for the period from 19.06.2000
to 30.06.2000 and on his engagement, he was paid at the rate of Rs.73/- per
day for the days he worked as Daily Rated Casual Labourer. Subsequently, he
was engaged for further period from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000, 01.08.2000 to
31.08.2000, 01.09.2000 to 05.09.2000, 18.09.2000 to 30.09.2000, 01.10.2000
to 31.10.2000, 01.11.2000 to 30.11.2000, 11.12.2000 to 31.12.2000 and
finally for a further period from 01.01.2001 to 31.01.2001 and his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
engagement was not further extended by the petitioner and the first
respondent has worked for only 174 days.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to
the letter dated 31.10.2001 in regard to the Industrial Dispute raised by the
first respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein, it is stated
that:
“ I am to inform that as stated in the said letter this Laboratory is a sub-
ordinate institution of the Central Government under the administrative
control of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. All its employees are
governed by the service rules as applicable to employees of other Central
Government Departments and hence, this Laboratory is not an Industry and
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to this office.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
Court to the appointment order issued to Shri R.Madhana Gopal, who was
sponsored by the Employment Exchange (Employment Exchange
Registration No.5599/94) and posted as Animal Attendant with a scale of pay
of Rs.2550/- per month, with effect from 23.02.2001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this
Court to ground C of the affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the appointment
of Shri R.Madhanagopal as Casual Labourer was extended, as his services
were required in the Section, where he was working. Moreover, he was
sponsored by the Employment Exchange, whereas the first respondent was
not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, Shri
R.Madhanagopal's appointment as Casual Labourer too was not extended
beyond 22.02.2001. But, he was appointed as Animal Attendant with effect
from 23.02.2001, consequent upon his selection by the Departmental
Selection Committee (DSC). Further, Shri R.Madhangopal had submitted his
application for the post of Animal Attendant in response to the Circular of the
Petitioner's office whereas, the first respondent did not submit any such
application. Moreover, according to the Reservation Roster, the said post of
Animal Attendant was to be filled by an OBC Candidate and Shri
R.Madhangopal, being an OBC Candidate was selected after due procedure.
Subsequently, when the petitioner’s office sought to make an application to
the post of Laboratory Peon, Shri R.Madhanagopal was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange. Besides that, the said post of Laboratory Peon as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
also to be filled by on OBC candidate. Therefore, based on the
recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee, Shrii
R.Madhanagopal was appointed as Laboratory Peon w.e.f. 26.03.2001.
Therefore, the second respondent has erred in comparing the appointment of
Shri R.Madhanagopal with that of the first respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
engagement of Casual Labourer and discontinuation of engagement will not,
by any stretch of interpretation, amount to 'Retrenchment' under section 25G
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The first respondent was engaged as Casual
Labourer only for a total period of 174 days. Even to seek regularization, the
OM/Law mandates, engagement as Casual Labourer for not less than 240
days. Hence, the first respondent was not entitled to claim regularization of
his service.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
findings of the Tribunal that the non-employment is in total violation of the
provisions contained in Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
correct. The provisions of Section 25G deals with procedure for
retrenchment. When the law excludes the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry
form the purview of retrenchment, the said provisions of Section 25G also
stand excluded as it deals only with the procedure for retrenchment. The
non-consideration for further employment was due to the reason as there was
no requirement of his services. It is pertinent to point out that the first
respondent was employed as casual labourer without following the rules
which stipulate that the employee should be sponsored by the employment
exchange. He had been engaged against the rules – only on the oral
instructions of a higher official visiting and the same was also admitted by
the first respondent in his claim petition before the Tribunal, which is
irregular and against the rules and hence illegal. As per OM No.49014/2/93
Estt. (C) dt. 12th July 1994, of the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training), and as per
Clarification in Sl.No.1,
“Since it is mandatory to engage casual Employees
through Employment Exchange, the appointment of casual
employees without Employment Exchange is irregular, hence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
such casual employees cannot be bestowed with temporary
status.”
Thus, as per the instructions of the Government of India, the first respondent
cannot be even considered for temporary status.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
employment of causal labourer was made statutory with the introduction of
the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of vacancies) Act,
1959. It was made applicable to all establishments owned by the Central
Government or a department of the Central Government. All vacancies in
Central Government Establishment other than those filled through the UPSC
or agencies like the Staff Selection Commission should be notified to the
nearest Employment Exchange and no department or office should fill any
vacancy by direct recruitment (MHA OM.No.71/49-DGS, DT 11-12.49 R/W
mha om. No.14/11/64-Estt (D) dt 21.3.64).
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is
no illegality in the non-engagement of the first respondent after 31.01.2001.
In the case of causal labour, there is no requirement for issuing any kind of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
notice to him regarding non-renewal of engagement. Such daily rated Casual
Labourers are appointed for a period of one month for carrying out work of
casual and seasonal nature. Based on the exigencies of work, their
appointments are continued for a further period of one month and they are
informed accordingly. Hence, such appointments cease to exist on
completion of one month and the same is extended, only if there is any work
of casual or seasonal nature. In the case of the first respondent, his
appointment as casual labourer was not extended beyond 31.01.2001 due to
the reasons mentioned above.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of
the first respondent is not falling under Retrenchment as per S.2(OO) (BB),
the applicability of 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly
the principle of 'last come, first go' is not at all applicable to the present case.
In the award, it is stated that the first respondent produced Employment
Exchange Registration card, which evidenced his registration in 1993. It is
further claimed by the first respondent that Shri R.Madhanagopal got
registered only subsequently in the year 1994. However, what matters is, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
recommendation of the Employment exchange. The undisputed fact as
evidenced by the copy of the letter dated 01.06.2001 of the District
Employment Officer, Chennai does not contain the name of the first
respondent. Hence, there is no room for any irrebuttable presumption that the
Employment Exchange would have sponsored the name of the first
respondent before sponsoring the said Shri R.Madhanagopal.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
direction of the Tribunal to reinstate the employee is against the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme court as held in the case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana
State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr. 2009-15-SCC- 327 which
reads as under:
“7. It is true that earlier view of this Court
articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position
that if the termination of an employee was found to be
illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages
would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there
has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of
cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief
by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic
and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation
even though the termination of an employee is in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
contravention to the prescribed procedure. Compensation
instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of
justice. The said view has been relied upon by the Hon'ble
SC in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal vs
Santhosh kumar seal & others. CDJ 2010 SC 374,"
13. The first Respondent heavily relies on the findings of the Labour
Court without appreciating the catena of decisions upholding the
predominance of the service Rules over the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the case of, The Director of Postal Services Vs. K.R.B.
Kaimal and Anr. (Full Bench); 1984 Labour and Industrial Cases, it was
held that:
“ We therefore hold that the writ petitioners are not
entitled to invoke Section 33(c)(2) of the Ind Disputes Act, that
the Tribunal constituted under the Act has to jurisdiction to
consider this claim, that they are governed by Rule 5 of the
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and not
by Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and in reversal of
the single Judge's judgment, allow the appeal and dismiss the
original petition; but in the circumstances of the case.”
Before coming to the said conclusion, it was analysed the constitutional
provisions viz-a viz the provisions of the Industrial Act and the Service rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
applicable to the Government servants. Further, it examined the following
issues:
“The petitioners were governed by the Special Rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution, their services are liable to be terminated and
their monetary claim is limited under those rules and the Industrial Disputes
Act cannot be invoked in their case.
(a) Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to the area covered by the
rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
(b) The principle “Generalibus specialia derogant” applies and special
rules under Article 309 should prevail over the general provision under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
(c) The subsequent rules under Article 309 override the earlier
provision of the Industrial Disputes Act
(d) Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in its entirety cannot
apply to Government Servants and
(e) In any case, the Industrial Disputes Act in its entirety cannot apply
to all the Government Servants.
It was further held that where the conditions of service, the scale of pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
and the conduct rules regulating the service conditions are governed by the
statutory regulation, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not
applicable and it is outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts acting under
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
14. To conclude, the Hon'ble Labour Court erred in directing to
reinstate the first respondent which is against the findings of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as held in the case of Himachal Road Transport
Corporation v Dineshkumar CDJ 1996 SC 1633 where it was held:
“In the absence of a vacancy it is not open to the
Corporation to appoint a person to any post. It will be a gross
abuse of the powers of a public authority to appoint persons
when vacancies are not available... The Tribunal should only
give a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the
case of a particular applicant.... It is not open to the Tribunal
either to direct the appointment of any person to a post or direct
the authorities concerned to create supernumerary post and
then appoint such a person to a post. We are of the view that
directions given by the Administrative Tribunal are totally
unauthorized and illegal”.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
recruitment rules are made by the government for all civil servants and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
scheme of regularization is not applicable to the first respondent and as he
was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he could not be considered
for further employment after his engagement was not renewed after
31.01.2001. Hence, he prayed for allowing this writ petition.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
that after the termination of the first respondent on 31.01.2001, the petitioner
has appointed one Shri R.Madhanagopal as Animal Attendant with effect
from 23.02.2001, who is junior to the first respondent and he registered his
name in the Employment Exchange in the year 1994 under Registration
No.5599/1994, whereas, the first respondent has registered his name in the
Employment Exchange on 08.06.1993 itself and engaged as Daily Rated
Casual Labour with effect from 19.06.2000. Hence, it is crystal clear and
evident that Shri R. Madhanagopal is junior to the first respondent.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further
submitted that Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not
been complied by the petitioner herein. For better appreciation, Section 25
(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
“Where any workman in an Industrial Establishment
who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a
particular category of workman in that establishment, in the
absence of any agreement between the employer and the
workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench
the workman who was the last person to be employed in that
category unless for reasons to be recorded. The employer
retrenches any other workman”.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent drew the
attention of this Court to paragraph (5) of the claim statement and the same
reads as follows:
“While so, the petitioner submits that without any notice
or opportunity to the petitioner and without assigning any
reason the petitioner was not permitted to work and was refusd
employment in February 2001, after he had worked until
31.01.2001. No written order of termination was issued to the
petitioner. The petitioner was also not paid any retrenchment
compensation. The petitioner further submits that certain other
persons, namely, (i) Senthil Kumar (appointed on a date earlier
to the petitioner) (ii) Madanagopal (appointed along with the
applicant) (iii) Sasikumar (iv) Balaji and (v) Selvakumar ((iii)
to (v) appointed subsequent to the petitioner as Casual Labour)
are still retained and some of them have also been confirmed as
Lab Peon. This is discriminatory.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
19. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further drew
the attention of this Court to paragraph (7) of the counter statement before the
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and the same is extracted hereunder:
“7. As stated earlier, the petitioner's appointment as
Casual Labourer was continued from time to time with
periodical breaks based on the exigencies of work in this
Laboratory. Subsequently, the petitioner's appointment as
Casual Labourer was not extended beyond 31.01.2001 as there
was no requirement of services of Casual Labourers in respect
of the Section where the Petitioner was posted earlier. As
regards the petitioner's averment that “No written order of
termination was issued” to him, it is submitted that the
petitioner was appointed as Casual Labourer and normally in
this Laboratory, such daily rated Casual Labourers are
appointed for a period of one month for carrying out work of
casual and seasonal nature. Based on the exigencies of work,
their appointments are continued for a further period of one
month and they are informed accordingly. Hence, such
appointments cease to exist on completion of the one month time
and the same is extended only if there is any work of casual or
seasonal nature. In the case of the petitioner, his appointment
as Casual Labourer was not extended beyond 31.01.2001 due to
the reasons mentioned earlier. As regards “retrenchment
compensation” claimed by the petitioner, it is submitted that
there is no provision for such compensation”.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
submitted that as regards Shri R.Madhanagopal, it is submitted by the
petitioner that he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was
appointed as Daily Rated Casual Labourer w.e.f. 20.6.2000, consequent upon
his selection by the Departmental Selection Committee. It may be seen that
Shri R.Madhanagopal was appointed on the same date as that of the
Petitioner. Though the appointment of the Petitioner was not extended
beyond 31.1.2001, the appointment of Shri Madhana Gopal was extended as
his services were required in the Section, where he was working. Moreover,
Shri R.Madhanagopal was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, whereas
the Petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
Subsequently, Shri R.Madhanagopal was appointed as Laboratory Peon w.e.f.
26.06.2001.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further
submitted that as regards Shri B.Sasikumar, Shri R.Balaji and Shri
A.Selvakumar, it is submitted that Shri Sasikumar and Shri Balaji were
appointed as Laboratory Peons and Shri Selvakumar was appointed as
Animal Attendant. The Petitioner's contention that these individuals were
initially appointed as Casual Labourers is not true. These individuals were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
sponsored by the Employment Exchange and their appointments were based
on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee after the
mandatory interview for which they appeared along with other candidates
sponsored by the employment exchange for recruitment to the post of
Laboratory Peon and Animal Attendant.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further drew
the attention of this Court to the findings of the Labour Court. For better
appreciation, the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:
“In this case, the petitioner contended that one Shri
R.Madhanagopal, who was appointed along with him and
Sasikumar, Balaji and Selvakumar who were appointed as
Casual Labourers subsequent to his appointment, were retained
in the lab and some of these persons have also been confirmed as
lab peons. It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioner that it
is in total violation of the provisions under Section 25 G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this case, it is admitted by the
Respondent that the Petitioner's service was not extended beyond
31.01.2001 and the reason stated for this is that there was no
requirement of Casual Labour service in that section, where the
Petitioner was posted. At the same time, it is the evidence of the
Respondent side that the services of Madhanagopal were not
extended beyond 22.02.2001 but however, Mr. Madhanagopal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
was re-appointed as Lab Peon with effect from 26.06.2001. It is
his further evidence that Mr. Madhanagopal's selection was
made by the Departmental Selection Committee and only after an
interview. But, I do not understand how the Departmental
Selection Committee has made this selection of Mr.
Madhanagopal, while his senior (Petitioner) was not called for
the interview. The action of the Respondent/Management is in
total violation of the provisions contained in Section 25G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If the management thinks any
person as surplus, 'last come first go' principle ought to be
followed. In this case, it is not the case of the Respondent that
the juniors were retained on account of any special expertise, in
fact, the Respondent has not given any reason at the time of non-
employment, for retaining the Petitioner's juniors namely,
Madhanagopal and others while refusing employment to the
Petitioner and therefore, non- employment is in total violation of
the provisions contained in Section 25G of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Therefore, the non- employment of the Petitioner
is illegal.”
23. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
24. In the present case on hand, the first respondent was engaged as
Casual Labour on 19.06.2000 at the rate of Rs.73/- per day for the days he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
worked as Daily Rated Casual Labourer and subsequently, it was extended
upto 31.01.2001 and after that, his engagement was not extended. The
services of the first respondent was not extended for the reason that his
services was not required in the section, where he was engaged as a Daily
Rated Casual Labourer. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the
services of one Shri R.Madhanagopal, whose services was not extended and
junior to first respondent was subsequently appointed on 23.02.2001 as
Animal Attendant by order dated 22.03.2001 with the pay scale of Rs.2550/-
per month and his probation for a period of 2 years from the date of his
appointment. Then on 20.06.2001 Shri R.Madhanagopal was appointed to
the post of Laboratory Peon with a pay of Rs.2550/- and will be on probation
for a period of two years from the date of his appointment.
25. The first respondent was not permitted to work beyond 31.01.2001,
but certain other persons viz., Senthil Kumar, Madhanagopal, Sasikumar,
Balaji and Selvakumar were retained and some of them are confirmed as Lab
Peon and among the said persons, Madhanagopal was appointed earlier to the
first respondent. Therefore, it is clear and evident that the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
respondent is senior to Shri R.Madhanagopal since, the first respondent
was appointed on 19.06.2000, whereas Shri R.Madhanagopal was
appointed only on 20.06.2000. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute
with regard to the fact that the first respondent was appointed day
earlier to the appointment of Shri R.Madhanagopal and the said Shri
R.Madhanagopal is junior to the first respondent.
26. The appointment order of the first respondent dated 19.06.2000
was also marked as Ex.W.8 before the Labour Court, by which the first
respondent was also appointed as Daily Rated Casual Labour on the
Departmental Selection Committee. Ex.W.1, which was filed before the
Labour Court is the Employment Exchange Registration Card of the
first respondent dated 08.06.1993, whereas Ex.M.3 shows that Shri
R.Madhanagopal registered his name only in the year 1994 under the
registration No.5599/1994. Hence, it is clear that the first respondent has
registered his name in the Employment Exchange much earlier to the
said Shri R.Madhanagopal. Therefore, the Employment Exchange ought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
to have sponsored the name of the first respondent, before sponsoring
the name of Shri R.Madhanagopal.
27. The first respondent is a “workman”, within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petitioner herein
falls within the meaning of “Industry” under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, because the Management Witness categorically
admitted before the Labour Court that the petitioner laboratory is
carrying on manufacturing process and they also do supply and
distribution of vaccine. The Labour Court has correctly held that the
petitioner is an “Industry”. In the award of the Labour Court, the
Management witness stated that the services of Shri R.Madhanagopal were
not extended beyond 22.02.2001 and he was re-appointed as Lab Peon with
effect from 26.06.2001. However, Ex.M.3 dated 23.02.2001 would clearly
show that Shri R.Madhanagopal was appointed as Animal Attendant with
effect from 23.02.2001 and as Lab Peon with effect from 26.06.2001.
Therefore, it is clear that when the first respondent was not allowed to
continue beyond 31.01.2001, Shri R.Madhanagopal was allowed to continue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
as Casual Labourer till 22.02.2001 and he was continued as Animal
Attendant from 23.02.2001 and as Lab Peon from 26.06.2001. Therefore, he
was continued in service without any break, whereas the first respondent,
who is senior to Shri R.Madhanagopal was not permitted to work beyond
31.01.2001.
28. The first respondent and Shri R.Madhanagopal were initially
appointed in the same category of “Daily Rated Casual Labourer” and they
belonged to the “same category” as mentioned in Section 25(G) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the termination of the services of
the first respondent when his juniors have been retained is an violation of
Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court has
correctly held so. The reason given by the petitioner for terminating the
services of the first respondent is that “there was no requirement of
services of Casual Labourers in respect of the section where the first
respondent was posted earlier. Likewise the reason given for retaining
the said Shri R.Madhanagopal beyond 31.01.2001 is that his services
were required in the section where he was working is not sustainable for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
the reason that according to M.W.1, the entire lab is a single unit and for
the purpose of seniority it is considered as a single unit.
29. Hence, the Labour Court has correctly held that the petitioner
is an “Industry” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and that as per Section 25(G) of the Act “Last come first go” should be
followed while retrenching the workman and in this case, the first
respondent's services were terminated when his juniors were retained
and therefore, the termination is invalid in Law. Therefore, the first
respondent is entitled to get relief of the reinstatement as rightly held by
the Labour Court.
30. It is a well settled law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court cannot interfere with the findings/award of the Labour Court
unless the same is perverse, arbitrary, unsustainable and illegal in the face of
law.
31. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
infirmity or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.63
of 2002 dated 08.12.2003, holding that the petitioner is an Industry within a
meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that as per Section 25(G) of the
Act “ Last come first go” should be followed while retrenching the workman
and the first respondent is entitled for reinstatement.
32. The award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.63 of 2002 dated
08.12.2003 is hereby confirmed.
33. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
01.06.2023
vm
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
To:
The Presiding Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
Central Government Industrial
Tribunal – cum – Labour Court,
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm
W.P.No.11698 of 2004
01.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
