Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
C. Wilbert
Versus
The Manager of Indian Institute of Technology, Represented by its Director, Chennai-600036 & Others
Writ Appeal No.169 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 15-07-2008
Labour Dispute - Project Attendant - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 12(3) - Regularisation of Casual Labour - Absorption of Casual Workers - IIT, Madras - CSIR - NMR - Labour Court - W.P.No.26926 of 2004 - Regular Establishment - No Work, No Pay
Fact of the Case:
The appellant worked as a Project Attendant for various projects at IIT, Madras from 1992 to 1996. He approached the Labour Officer for reinstatement, leading to an Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the decision was set aside by a single Judge. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant was continuously engaged in projects by the respondents and that the second respondent was an offshoot of the first respondent. The Court noted that similarly situated persons were absorbed into regular establishment, but the appellant was denied the same benefit. The Court held that the appellant should be absorbed into the services of the respondents on the same terms and conditions as another worker, but was not entitled to backwages.
Issues: Regularisation of Casual Labour, Absorption of Casual Workers, Continuity of Employment, Discrimination, Unfair Labour Practices, No Work, No Pay
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the continuous engagement of the appellant, the existence of similar workers being absorbed, and the unfair labor practices exhibited by the respondents justified the appellant's claim for absorption into the services of the respondents.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to be absorbed into the services of the respondents on the same terms and conditions as another worker, but ruled that the appellant was not entitled to any backwages.
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
The appellant was initially appointed as NMR for six months w.e.f. 111. 1988 at JEE Office of the IIT, Madras and thereafter as an NMR helper in the Central Stores for another period of 15 days. He applied for the post of a Project Attendant in Centre for Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research, the second respondent herein, and was appointed as such in a project called Niharaka Lehan for a period of six months, by order dated 25. 1992, on a consolidated wages of Rs.1,000/= per month and on completion of the said term, he was relieved by the order dated 24/211. 1992 on and from the afternoon of 211. 1992. Thereafter, he was again engaged for another period of six months from 12. 1992 to 6. 1993 for another project on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,300/= per month and he was relieved on 6. 1993. Thereupon, the petitioner was again engaged as a Project Attendant in another project called Testing of Ramji Combustion in the Aero Space Engineering Section, for a period of six months from 14. 1994 to 10. 1994 on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,200/= per month. He was again appointed in the same project for a period upto 312. 1994 from 210. 1994 and he was relieved from duty on 312. 1994, but his services were extended upto 13. 1995 in the same project and thereafter, he was relieved from the said project on and from 13. 1995 by order dated 13. 1995. Thereafter, the appellant was again engaged in another project for a period of one month and ten days from 20.3.1995 to 30.4.1995 as a Project Attendant on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,250/= per month in a project called Studies on Advanced Propulsion System for Aero Space Vehicles and he was relieved of his duties from 30.4.1995. All these facts were admitted by the respondents in their counter filed before the Labour Court. But, according to the appellant, even after 30.4.1995, he was again appointed by the respondent and ultimately relieved on 13. 1996. This statement of the appellant was not denied by the respondents. Therefore, it is seen that from 25. 1992, till 13. 1996, the appellant was serving the respondents in one project or other.
2. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Labour Officer-III, Madras for his reinstatement in service, but since the respondents have refused to comply with his request, a failure report came to be passed by the Labour Officer on 1. 1997, whereupon the appellant raised an Industrial Dispute.
.3. Before the Labour Court, the appellant has contended that he is the employee of the respondents, since he worked for more than three years, though there were artificial breaks during those periods and that he served for more than 240 days and thus he is entitled for reinstatement. This contention of the appellant was refuted by the first respondent, contending that the appellant was only a temporary employee of the projects undertaken by the second respondent, which are sponsored by the outside agencies and therefore, the same does not confer on him any right. The Labour Court has accepted the claim of the appellant/workman and has ordered that the nonemployment of the appellant is not justified and that the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with backwages and other attendant benefits. This Award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondents 1 and 2 herein by filing W.P.No.26926 of 2004 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 12. 2006, has set aside the Award of the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the workman has come forward to prefer this appeal.
4. From the materials placed on record it is seen that the appellant was engaged by the respondents for one project or other as Project Attendant for the period from 25. 1992 to 13. 1996, with some breaks. A strange argument has been advanced on the part of the respondents, as if both the respondents 1 and 2 are separate entities and that the identity card was issued only by the second respondent, and not by the first respon
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
