JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the Award passed by the first respondent dated 17.11.2003 in I.D.No.210 of 1992.)

1. The Award dated 17.11.2003 passed in I.D.No.210 of 1992 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner Society is Kallakurichi Taluk Cooperative Rural Housing Society Limited, which is registered under Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1981. The second respondent-workman was engaged as a casual labourer on need basis. There was no proper appointment order issued by the writ petitioner-Management in compliance with the provisions of the bye-laws or the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules. Thus, the initial appointment of the second respondent-workman was irregular. The writ petitioner states that during September 1996, the second respondent on his own volition stopped reporting for work and resigned his job on 27.09.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute with an allegation that the writ petitioner-Management denied employment and orally the second respondent-workman was terminated from service on 28.09.1986. The dispute was raised in I.D.No.210 of 1992.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that there were many changes in the management of the writ petitioner-Society. On account of the change of elected Board and due to that records relating to I.D.No.210 of 1992 was lost and the pendency of the above dispute was not known to the management due to efflux of time. Thus, the writ petitioner-Society was not represented in I.D.No.210 of 1992 and an ex parte award was passed on 05.07.1996, directing the writ petitioner-Society to reinstate the second respondent-workman with backwages, continuity of service and other benefits.

4. The writ petitioner-Society filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order and a condone delay petition was also filed. However, the Labour Court refused to receive the application on the ground that the ex parte award had already been published in the Gazette and therefore the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application to set aside the ex parte order. The second respondent, based on the ex parte award, has filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under those circumstances, a writ petition in WP No.21622 of 2000 is filed. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by an order dated 18.03.2002 and the petitioner was directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent-workman. The first respondent therein conducted an adjudication on merits and passed an Award on 17.11.2003 in I.D.No.201 of 1992.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated that the second respondent was engaged as a casual labourer and his initial appointment was irregular and not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. The very engagement of the second respondent-workman is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules. Thus, the Labour Court Award is in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Justin [2003 (1) LLJ 284], which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Rani [(2005) 1 MLJ 6(SC)].

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the irregular and illegal appointments in Cooperative Societies were adjudicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Justine and another Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai – 10, reported in 2003 (1) LLJ 284 and 2002 (4) CTC 385, which was taken by way of an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.Umarani V. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, reported in (2005) 1 MLJ 6(SC), the Courts held that the irregular appointees are not entitled for regularization or perm