Madras High Court
Unknown vs N.Jayaseelan on 8 January, 2024
W.P.No.10948 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.01.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.10948 of 2019
and
WMP.No.11385 of 2019
1. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Lower Palar Basin Sub Division,
PWD Building, Collectorate Compound,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Junior Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Lower Palar Basin Sub Division,
PWD Building,
Collectorate Compound,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization,
Public Works Department Sub Division,
Lower Palar Basin,PWD Building,
Kancheepuram.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10948 of 2019
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction and Maintenance Sub Division,
Buildings Organization PWD Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram.
...Petitioners
Vs
N.Jayaseelan,
...Respondent
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records in
I.D.No.137 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018 on the file of the Labour Court,
Kancheepuram and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mrs.Mythrayee Chandru,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mrs.P.Kavitha Balakrishnan
ORDER
Writ petition is filed by the Public Works Department challenging the
Award dated 23.10.2018 of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 137 of 2018. By the
said Award the Labour Court allowed the claim petition of the workman,
directing the 2nd petitioner herein to reinstate him along with continuity of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
service, full backwages and all attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner's will be referred to as Department and the
respondent as workman.
3. The workman was appointed in the year 1984 as sweeper in the
tourist Bungalow at Kanchipuram on daily wages of Rs.15/- per day till
1988. He worked as night watchman in the inspection bungalow and
thereafter appointed as a Mazdoor Grade I in Junior Engineer, Public
Works Department, Lower Palar Basin Sub-Division, PWD Building,
Kanchipuram and during this period was paid a salary of Rs.2000/-.
According to the workman he worked continuously from November 1988
to December 2003 without any break-in service. He was orally terminated
by the petitioner on 10.10.2003 without prior notice, on the alleged
misconduct of misbehaviour with the higher officials.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Department on the other hand contended that the workman
was a casual labourer and his statement that he worked continuously from
November 1988 to December 2003 was incorrect. According to the
Department, the daily wagers were engaged on need basis and their
engagement was stopped after completion of project. As the engagement
of the workman was co-terminus, with the project there was no
requirement of notice of termination.
5. Before the Labour Court the workman examined himself as P.W1
and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W5. and the Department neither marked any
documents nor examined any witness.
6. The Labour Court on consideration of the materials placed before
it allowed the claim. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the Department
has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
Department submitted that the claim petition was originally filed in
I.D.No. 359/2019 before the Labour Court at Chennai and the case was
duly conducted by the Government Pleader. Thereafter it was transferred
to Kanchipuram in the I.D.No.137/2018. The Government Pleader who
conducted the case in the Kanchipuram Court did not inform about the
stage of the case to the Department and so it came to know about the case
the only after the impugned Award was passed. The learned Government
Pleader further submitted that on 11.09.2018 the case was posted to
12.09.2018 for the Department's evidence. On 12.09.2018 the Department
was called absent and on the basis of the arguments of the workman's
counsel, the case was reserved for Judgment and orders were passed on
23.10.2018. It is therefore submitted that an opportunity should be given to
the Department to establish that the documents produced by the workman
are not genuine and were created for the purpose of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The learned counsel for the workman on the other hand submitted
that ample opportunity was given to the Department to lead evidence, but
the same was not utilised by it and therefore the Labour Court was
justified in deciding the matter on merits.
9. I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the
entire materials placed on record.
10. It is seen from the Award that the Labour Court has not given any
finding on whether the workman had completed 240 days of work in a
calender year to satisfy the mandate of Section 25(f) of the I.D. Act. The
Labour Court has not given any finding on the violation of Section 25(f) of
the I.D. Act. The Labour Court even without a finding that the termination
order was illegal passed the impugned Award for reinstatement and other
reliefs. The Labour Court has not given any finding on the submission of
the Department that PWD is not covered under the definition of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
industry under the I.D Act. The Labour Court has neither framed issues for
consideration nor has it given any cogent findings. The Award of the
Labour Court is very cryptic.
11. In the writ affidavit it is stated that the case was transferred from
Chennai to Kancheepuram. The Government Pleader at Kancheepuram
did not communicate the status of the case. It is stated that the case was
called on 11.09.2018 and posted for its evidence on 12.09.2018. On
12.09.2018 it was called absent, counsels arguments were heard and orders
reserved. The learned Special Government Pleader therefore prayed that
an opportunity should be given to the Department to contest the case on
merits. Though the learned Government Pleader canvassed vehemently
that the documents produced by the workman were not genuine. I do not
propose to delve into the same as it is for the Labour Court to appreciate it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The Labour Court's Award is not in confirmity with the settled
procedure, which contemplates framing of issues and findings thereon.
Further the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement without even
discussing whether the mandate of law of completion of 240 days of
service in a calendar year was complied with. I am therefore of the view
that the Award of the Labour Court is unsustainable and the same is set
aside.
13. Hence the Award dated 23.10.2018 in I.D.No.137 of 2018 is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh
consideration. The Labour Court shall permit the Department and the
workman to file additional pleadings and evidence and pass orders on
merits in accordance with law within a period of six (6) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the result, writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.01.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Lower Palar Basin Sub Division,
PWD Building, Collectorate Compound,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Junior Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Lower Palar Basin Sub Division,
PWD Building,
Collectorate Compound,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization,
Public Works Department Sub Division,
Lower Palar Basin,PWD Building,
Kancheepuram.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Construction and Maintenance Sub Division,
Buildings Organization PWD Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.MALA,J.
dsn
08.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
