Workman cannot be just stopped from working.

The management of Malaysian Airlines at Chennai has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the award of the Labour Court, seeking to call for the records on the file of the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai, first respondent herein, relating to I.D.No.579 of 1993 and to quash the award, dated 30.01.2004, made therein.

.2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent/workman filed an application under Section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") in I.D.No.579 of 1993, claiming that he was employed as a Traffic Assistant with effect from 04.07.1987 and the said workman was stopped from work on 07.04.1993 without any notice or compensation and that his non-employment was not justified.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Attendance Register, which is maintained in the usual course and which covers the period from 1989 to 1997 marked as Ex.M-1 shows that the second respondent has not signed in the register for even a single day and the evidence of M.W.1, the management witness, is that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was operating from the old Meenambakkam Airport, that of the four weekly flights in the schedule, one flight on Saturdays was a night flight; that flight sometimes was of Air India, who were the ground handling agents of the petitioner management. Because they were short-staffed to handle the night flight and the petitioner had a pool of casuals, they would intermittently call for hands to assist in handling the night flight once in a week. It is for the security reasons, the entry of staff into the operational areas of the Airport is regulated by the Airport Authority. The permanent staff are issued Permanent Photo-ID Cards and casuals are issued Temporary Passes and the said passes cannot be secured at short notice when the casuals actually needed. Therefore, these passes were obtained for periods covering three to six months and issued to the casuals to enable them to enter the operational area whenever their services were actually required.

.4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the second respondent had a provisional store in Nanganallur and he would be informed over phone whenever Air India were short of manpower and the services of the second respondent were required. The handling of the flight would take four hours and the second respondent would be required to retrieve the fire-proof blanket provided to passengers for their use during the flight if they did not return the same while leaving the aircraft and assist with loading, unloading and identification of baggage. The second respondent was one in a pool of casual workmen, who were intermittently called to work and he would utmost have worked five days in a month and he would paid at the rate of Rs.100/- per day and later Rs.150/-per day whenever his assistance was required and the payment depending on the number of days actually worked would vary from month to month and would be made by MW-1 from out of Petty Cash. The authority to employ permanent staff was vested with the Area Manager of the petitioner and the Airport Manager was only authorised to engage casual staff. The casuals, who were intermittently employed to meet emergencies, did not enjoy any privileges. In the above circumstances, the second respondent workman had not actually worked for 240 days in 12 month period or 120 days in 6 month period, to attract the provisions of Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is a precondition for application of Section 25 F of the Act.

.5. Earlier, the first respondent Labour Court passed an award, dated 22.08.1996, dismissing the application filed by the workman and the same was challenged by the second respondent/workman in W.P.No.1958 of 1997. This Court, by its order, dated 210. 2003, set aside the award and passed the following