Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 321
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
C.Ramamurthy - Appellant
Versus
The Management Rural Unit & Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.19562 of 1996
Decided On : 03 March 2004
The petitioner's exercise of option to come under CMCH Rules obligated the respondents to transfer him to another department after the project's conclusion, and the continuous extension of probation was deemed unacceptable.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25-F - RUHSA Rules, CMCH Rules - [Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25-F, RUHSA Rules, CMCH Rules]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as Agricultural Supervisor Trainee, opted to come under CMCH Rules. His services were terminated after the project's closure. The Labour Court found the appointment to be project-based and ruled against the employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's option to come under CMCH Rules obligated the respondents to transfer him to another department after the project's conclusion. The continuous extension of probation was deemed unacceptable, and the petitioner was entitled to be regularized in service.
Issues: Unfair labor practice, compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, entitlement to reinstatement and regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's exercise of option to come under CMCH Rules obligated the respondents to transfer him to another department after the project's conclusion. The continuous extension of probation was deemed unacceptable, and the petitioner was entitled to be regularized in service.
Final Decision: The award of the Labour Court was set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in any suitable post and be regularized in the service of CMCH/second respondent, with all consequential benefits of continuous service. No backwages were awarded.
The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No.421 of 1993 dated 5.10.1994 and to quash the same.
2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition and the facts stated in this para are not in controversy. The petitioner, who is a B.Sc.(Botany) graduate, came to be appointed as Agricultural Supervisor Trainee on 1.7.1983 in the Rural Unit for Health and Social Affairs (RUHSA) Gudiyattam, N.A.A.District. From 1.3.1984 he was appointed as supervisor on probation for a period of one year. That was done by virtue of the order dated 9.5.1984 with effect from 1.3.1984. Subsequently, the second respondent, the Management, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, NAA District, under whom the employees were appointed, were given option either to remain under RUHSA Rules or to come under CMCH Rules. It was made clear that if the employee opted to come under CMCH Rules, he will be governed only by the RUHSA rules and regulations regarding pay, increments, D.A., leave rules and service condition etc., The following is the letter calling for the option from the employees:-
" Consequent on the reorganisation of RUHSA, you are requested to give your option to come under the discipline, salary scales of C.M.C.H., and also to work in any department of C.M.C.H. Or RUHSA department as; the case may be or to remain in the old scales of RUHSA on or before 8th April, 1986. You are required to give your option in the tear off slip provided below, failing which it will be construed that you would like to remain in the old RUHSA scales.
If you would like to remain in the RUHSA scales of pay, you will be governed by the old RUHSA rules and regulations regarding pay, increments, D.A., leave rules and service conditions etc., as on 30.6.1985. The retirement benefits will also be as per RUHSA's rules. On the other hand if you opt to come under the discipline of CMCH, you will be governed by the CMCH rules and regulations regarding pay, increment, D.A., and leave rules, retirement benefits, Death benefits etc., with effect from 1.7.1985. The option once made is final and irrevocable."
3. There is also no dispute over the fact that by letter dated 22.7.1987, the petitioner opted to come under CMCH Rules. In the letter he has stated that he was working as Dairy Supervisor in RUHSA from 1.7.1983 having been appointed by the Programme Director, RUHSA and that consequent on the reorganisation of RUHSA, he has given his option and willingness to come under the discipline of CMCH and also to work in any unit/Department of CMCH or RUHSA department as the case may be and that he will abide by the CMCH Staff service rules, Leave rules and other Rules & Regulations. The other portions of the format are struck off.
4. Thereafter the appointment of the petitioner was extended every year from 1988 to 1990. The last extension is dated 4.1.1990, extending the period up to 1.2.1990.
5. However, by letter dated 29.1.1990, the services of the petitioner were ordered to be closed and in that letter it was stated that in terms of his appointment order dated 4.1.1990, his term of appointment as Live Stock Assistant in RUHSA Department expired on 31.1.1990 and that there is no further extension due to the reduction of funds and that his appointment shall cease from 1.2.1990.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on considering the material contentions, came to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was only project based and that when once the project was completed, the services of the persons appointed under the said project also would come to an end. Labour Court has also found that the project itself was started for training village people in the special sphere of the activities and that the project was never considered to be a permanent institution and theref
