Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4547
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport rep. by its Managing Director
Versus
The Presiding Officer
W.P.Nos.23160 to 23165 of 2004
Decided on: 08-12-2008
For the Petitioner:T. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R2, N.G.R. Prasad, Senior Counsel, T. Dhanyakumar, Advocates.
The initial burden is on the workmen to prove that they had completed 240 days of service. It is only after the discharge of the said initial burden that onus shifts to the management to disprove the version of the workman and to prove that the workman was not in the service of the employer or that they have not completed 240 days of continuous service in a given year.
Headnote:
Termination - Labour Dispute - Sec.25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act - [Termination] - [Labour Dispute] - [Sec.25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act] - The court discussed the termination of the petitioners as unfair and directed their reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The court found that the workmen were in the service of the corporation for more than 240 days in a year and the same was evident from the collection sheets produced by the workman. The Labour Court concluded that the termination was illegal and against the provisions of Sec.25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and ordered reinstatement with back wages and other benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen claimed to have been in the service of the Corporation for more than 240 days in a year and were terminated on account of their claim for regularization. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workmen were in the service of the corporation for more than 240 days in a year and the same was evident from the collection sheets produced by the workman. The Labour Court concluded that the termination was illegal and against the provisions of Sec.25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and ordered reinstatement with back wages and other benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of the workmen was justified and whether the workmen were entitled to secure reinstatement in service with back wages and other benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The initial burden is always on the workmen to prove that they had completed 240 days of service. It is only after the discharge of the said initial burden that onus shifts to the management to disprove the version of the workman and to prove that the workman was not in the service of the employer or that they have not completed 240 days of continuous service in a given year.
Final Decision: The award of the Labour Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration with specific directions to consider the receipts produced by the workmen, give a factual finding with regard to the violation of Sec.25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence both oral as well as documentary.
Common Order:
1. These writ petitions are directed against the award of the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.90 of 2001 to 95/2001, whereby the Labour Court declared the termination of the respective petitioners as unfair and directed their reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
Factual matrix :-
W.P.No.23160/2004 (I.D.No.91/2001):-
2. The workman, petitioner in I.D.No.91/2001, claims to have worked in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation from 22.09.1997 to 21.09.1998 as conductor originally and later as Time Keeper at their Tindivanam Depot. During such service, he had worked for 720 days and more particularly from 22.09.1997 to 21.09.1998. Subsequent to the rejection of the representation submitted by the workman for regularization, he was orally terminated and the said termination was challenged before this court and while dismissing the writ petition, this court granted liberty to the workman to approach the Labour Court for appropriate reliefs. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
W.P.No.23161/2004 (I.D.NO.90/2001) :-
3. According to the second respondent workman, he was recruited through employment exchange for the post of Conductor in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and he was in service since 03.05.1997. Originally, the petitioner was working at Villupuram as Conductor and he served there for more than 240 days per year. Later, he was transferred as Time Keeper in the Tindivanam Depot of the Corporation and during such service, he made an application on 21.07.2000 with a prayer to declare him as a permanent employee of the Corporation. The said prayer was not considered by the Corporation which resulted in filing a writ petition in W.P.No.15957/2000 and the High Court as per order dated 20.09.2000 directed the Management to consider the request of the petitioner and to pass orders thereon. On the basis of the said order, the management considered the case of the workman and as per their communication dated 212. 2000, rejected the claim for regularization and he was orally terminated. Even though the termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition, the same was rejected by this court granting liberty to the workman to seek relief through Labour Court. Subsequently, there was an unsuccessful conciliation. After submission of the failure report, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. According to the workman, he had put in 720 days in a period of three years from 03.05.1997 to 02.05.1998 in the Corporation and as such, his termination was unjust and illegal and was made in violation of Sec.25(f) of the I.D. Act.
W.P.No.23162/2004 (I.D.No.93/2001) :-
4. The workman in I.D.No.93/2001 was alleged to be in the service of the Corporation from 22.09.1997 to 21.09.1998 and he was selected in the personal interview conducted by the officials of the Corporation. The workman had a continuous service of 720 days during the period of three years. He was orally terminated consequent to the rejection of his claim for regularization and ultimately, he was permitted by this court as per order dated 212. 1990, to move the Labour Court.
W.P.No.23163/2004 (I.D.No.92/2001) :-
.5. The workman in I.D.No.92/2001, is stated to have been in the service of the Corporation from 22.09.1997 to 21.09.1998 and as such, he was in service for a total period of 720 days in three years. His entry to the service was also through Employment Exchange after interview. Since he had completed more than 240 days in a year, he made a request to the Corporation to regularize his service and on rejection of the said request, he was orally terminated, which made the workman to file a writ petition before this court. While dismissing the writ petition, liberty was granted to challenge the termination before the Labour Court and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
.W.P.No.23164/2004 (I.D.No.95/2001) :-
.6
