Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 650
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI
Larsen and Toubro Limited, Pondicherry
Versus
The Presiding Officer & Others
W.P.Nos.11475 & 11476 of 2003
Decided on : 08-02-2011
For the Petitioner:Sanjoy Mohan for M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. Ayyadurai, V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s. K. Ramkumar, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement of workmen as trainees and subsequent termination without complying with the provisions of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and other relevant labour laws is unjust and warrants reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.
Headnote:
Writ of Certiorari - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Apprentice Act, 1961 - Sec.25-F of I.D. Act - [Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.54 and 59 of 2001 dated 31.1.2003 whereby the Labour Court, Pondicherry directed the Petitioner-Management to reinstate the Respondents-Workmen w.e.f. 21.8.1998 with half back wages and with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Common points arise for consideration, both the Writ Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Order. For convenience, the Writ Petitioner is referred as Petitioner-Management and Workmen are referred as 2nd Respondent-Workmen. Case involves the engagement of workmen as trainees, non-compliance with labour laws, and the termination of their services. Labour Court held that Petitioner-Management was not justified in treating the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as mere trainees and subsequently terminating their services in violation of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act without any notice and without any compensation. Labour Court further held that appointing the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees and training measures were resorted to by the Petitioner-Management is only a device to summarily terminate them without assigning any reason. Pointing out that 2nd Respondent-Workmen have put in 240 days service in a year, Labour Court held that they shall be deemed to be worked in continuous service and they are entitled to reinstatement w.e.f. 21.8.1998 and ordered reinstatement with half back wages with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Labour Court also considered the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Apprentice Act, 1961 in arriving at its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd Respondent-Workmen were engaged as casual labourers by the Petitioner-Management and were subsequently treated as trainees and terminated from service. The Industrial Disputes were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court held that the Petitioner-Management was not justified in treating the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees and subsequently terminating their services without notice and compensation. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with half back wages and continuity of service.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the Petitioner-Management unjustly treated the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees and terminated their services in violation of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act without any notice and without any compensation. The Labour Court also held that the engagement of the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees and the subsequent termination was a device to summarily terminate them without assigning any reason. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with half back wages and continuity of service for the 2nd Respondent-Workmen.
Issues: 1. Whether the engagement of the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees was justified or not. 2. Whether the Petitioner-Management was right in treating the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees and subsequently terminating their services. 3. Whether the 2nd Respondent-Workmen are entitled to reinstatement and other attendant benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Labour Court held that the engagement of the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as trainees and the subsequent termination of their services by the Petitioner-Management was unjust and in violation of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also considered the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Apprentice Act, 1961 in arriving at its decision.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the 2nd Respondent-Workmen with half back wages and continuity of service was upheld.
1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.54 and 59 of 2001 dated 31.1.2003 whereby the Labour Court, Pondicherry directed the Petitioner-Management to reinstate the Respondents-Workmen w.e.f. 21.8.1998 with half back wages and with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
2. Since common points arise for consideration, both the Writ Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Order. For convenience, the Writ Petitioner is referred as Petitioner-Management and Workmen are referred as 2nd Respondent-Workmen.
3. Briefly stated case of 2nd Respondent-Workmen is that Petitioner-Management is running a factory in manufacturing electrical products in Pondicherry. 2nd Respondent-Workmen acquired ITI technical qualification and they were in continuous service of Petitioner-Management as casual labourers for the period indicated infra. Though, 2nd Respondent-Workmen were engaged as casual labourers, they were treated as permanent workmen in all aspects and the work was extracted from them like any other permanent workmen. Further case of 2nd Respondent-Workmen is that after they had put in service for the period stated infra, Petitioner-Management resorted illegal method of obtaining certain documents signed by them and issuing orders as if they have been appointed as trainees. Totally, 31 workmen were given training agreement and out of them, 25 only absorbed and the remaining workmen including 2nd Respondent-Workmen were denied the job. After conciliation efforts failed, 2nd Respondent-Workmen raised the Industrial Disputes.
4. As per G.O.Rt.No.173/2001/AIL/L dated 21.9.2001 and as per G.O.Rt.No.179/2001/AIL/L dated 03.10.2001, Industrial Disputes were referred to the Labour Court for adjudicating the following:- 1. Whether the non-employment of 2nd Respondent-Workmen - M.Boothanathan, Selvam, Ramalingam, D.Ramesh and D.Kolanjinathan by the Petitioner-Management of M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited, Pondicherry is justified or not? 2. To what relief/benefits the said workmen are entitled to? 3. To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed?
5. Petitioner-Management resisted the Industrial Disputes contending that 2nd Respondent-Workmen worked as contract labourers through contractor during the intermittent intervals. According to the Petitioner-Management, 2nd Respondent-Workmen were having no qualification and therefore, by the order dated 08.7.1996, they have been appointed as trainees imposing condition that appointment is subject to their passing apprenticeship examination in the first attempt. As per the contract, training period is for two years and no assurance was given to the 2nd Respondent-Workmen for permanent work. According to Petitioner-Management, after the expiry of training period, their services would automatically cease and after the expiry of training, the 2nd Respondent-Workmen were ceased to attend the factory. Case of Petitioner-Management is that 2nd Respondent-Workmen cannot be compelled to take trainees on regular basis despite their inefficiency found during the training period and Petitioner-Management prayed for dismissal of the Industrial Disputes.
6. In the Labour Court, in I.D.No.54/2001, on the side of 2nd Respondent-Workmen Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and on the side of Petitioner-Management, Exs.B1 to B36 were marked. Like wise in I.D.No.59/2001, on the side of 2nd Respondent-Workmen, Exs.A1 to A42 were marked and on the side of Petitioner-Management, Exs.B1 to B14 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on either side.
7. Upon consideration of evidence, Labour Court held that 2nd Respondent-Workmen were having requisite experience and qualification (ITI) and they have been working for a long period with the Petitioner-Management. Labour Court upheld that Petitioner-Management was not justified in treating the 2nd Respondent-Workmen as mere trainees and subsequently terminating their
