Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2458
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN
Indian Bank Employees Association, Represented by its General Secretary, K. Krishnan
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Another
W.P.Nos.3854 & 3855 of 2006
Decided On: 29-04-2011
For the Petitioner:V. Ajaykhose for M. Muthupandian, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R2 - R. Venkatraman for M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for employees to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s).
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F, Section 2(s) - The court discussed the applicability of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) in the context of the termination of casual employees. The court also considered various legal principles established in previous judgments to determine the rights of temporary and casual employees under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought reinstatement and regularisation in service after being denied employment by the respondent bank. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court rejected their claims, stating that they had not been engaged as per the norms prescribed for the recruitment of sub-staff and had been engaged only as casual sub-staff on a day-to-day basis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish their continuous engagement as sub-staff, and therefore, upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court rejecting their claims.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and regularisation in service after being denied employment by the respondent bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of continuous engagement as sub-staff, and therefore, were not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court rejecting the claims of the petitioners.
1. The writ petition, in W.P.No.3854 of 2006, has been filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the award of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 26.11.2002, made in I.D.No.697 of 2001, and to direct the second respondent management to reinstate the workman concerned in service, with backwages and continuity of service.
2. The writ petition, in W.P.No.3855 of 2006, has been filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the award of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 16.8.2002, made in I.D.No.64 of 2001, and to direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in service, with backwages and continuity of service.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner Association, in W.P.No.3854 of 2006, has been registered, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, with registration No.1316/MDS. The petitioner Association has filed the present writ petition, in W.P.No.3854 of 2006, on behalf of one B.Neelakandan, who had been engaged, originally, as a Sub-staff, in the Bank of Thanjavur, from 24.7.1986. He was employed in the International Division of the said bank, at Chennai, and in its various branches, continuously.
4. The Bank of Thanjavur was amalgamated, with the Indian Bank, with effect from 20.2.1990. Even thereafter, he had been engaged as a Sub-staff, on daily wages, in the Lattice Bridge Road branch of the Indian Bank, from 15.10.1990. He had worked for more than 240 days, till the date of his non-employment.
5. It has also been stated that B.Neelakantan was denied employment from the month of March, 1997. The petitioner Union had raised a dispute, with regard to his reinstatement and regularisation in service before the concerned conciliation officer. Since, no settlement could be arrived at, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour had submitted a failure report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. Thereafter, the dispute had been referred for adjudication. The matter was taken up as an industrial dispute, on the file of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in I.D.No.697 of 2001.
6. It has been further stated that the first respondent had passed an award, dated 26.11.2002, rejecting the claims made by the petitioner association on behalf of B.Neelakantan, stating that he had been engaged only as a casual employee in the second respondent bank, on daily wages and that, by itself, would not confer any right on him to make a claim for being absorbed in service, as a permanent Sub-staff. As such, the first respondent had held that the action of the management of the Indian Bank, denying employment to B.Neelakandan, is legal and justified.
7. The first respondent Labour Court had held that the concerned workman had not been engaged by the respondent Bank, as per the norms prescribed for the recruitment of sub-staff and as he had been engaged only as a casual sub-staff, on a day-to-day basis, unauthorisedly, it cannot be said that his service had been terminated, by the second respondent bank, arbitrarily and illegally.
8. In the writ petition, in W.P.No.3855 of 2006, it has been stated that the petitioner had joined the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd., at Srinrangam Branch, on 1.6.1987, as a Sub-staff, on a daily wage of Rs.15/-. The Bank of Thanjavur was amalgamated, with the Indian Bank, with effect from 20.2.1990. Even thereafter, he had been engaged as a Sub staff, on daily wages, in the Srirangam Branch of the Indian Bank, between the years 1992 and 1995. He had worked for more than 240 days, till the date of his non-employment.
9. It has also been stated that the petitioner was denied employment, from 1.1.1997. The petitioner had raised a dispute, with regard to his termination from service, before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli. Since, the conciliation proceedings had ended in failure, the matter was taken up as an industrial dispute, on the file of the first respondent Indust
