JUDGMENT :

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No. 65 of 2016 dated 18.05.2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Conductor with effect from 13.09.2007 with all consequential monetary benefits.

1. The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No. 65 of 2016 dated 18.05.2017, by which, the claim of the petitioner/Workman to reinstate him in service was negatived. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as Conductor with effect from 13.09.2007, with all consequential monetary benefits.

2. Facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:

2.1. It was the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Most Backward Community and completed his 10th and 12th standard, graduation in B.Sc. (Physics) and typewriting, with an additional qualification of computer course. Due to non-employment, he was constrained to obtain a Conductor license and he registered his license in the District Employment Exchange on 20.02.2004.

2.2. It was further case of the petitioner that the 2nd Respondent appointed several persons as Drivers and Conductors on 15.02.2005 on daily wage basis at Polur Depot in the 3rd Respondent Division. The Petitioner was also appointed as daily rated employee and was paid Rs. 75/- per day as daily wage. It was stated that since he worked for more than 16 hours a day from 15.02.2005 to 14.02.2006 for 126 days, his work was treated as double duty for 252 days in a 12 calendar month and was paid Rs. 150/- per day, thus, his employment was continuous and perennial in nature.

2.3. It was also the case of the Petitioner that in continuation thereof, he worked for 135 days from 15.02.2006 to 14.07.2007 (double duty for 270 days) and for 117 days from 15.02.2007 to 12.09.2007 (double duty for 234 days). Thus, it was the submission of the petitioner that he is entitled for absorption and permanency on completion of 480 days of service in a 24 calendar month, as his employment with the Respondents is not in dispute.

2.4. It was stated by the Petitioner that he and other temporary employees were, all of a sudden, terminated from service on 13.02.2007 without any notice and written order, which resulted in raising an Industrial Dispute through Union in C1/14352/2007 for permanency along with other demands and the mandatory provisions of Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the I.D. Act, 1947) were also not complied. Since the Union did not press permanency of retrenched employees, on the basis of conciliation failure report dated 09.09.2013, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2.5. It was the grievance of the Petitioner that the Respondents, without engaging the retrenched employees as per Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947, issued notifications, inviting a list of candidates from the Employment Exchange to fill up vacancies, which is against the dictum laid by a Division Bench of this Court in M. Sekaran vs. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2006 (1) MLJ 295 and is also contrary to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 41, Transport (C-1) Department dated 13.07.2006, as a preference must be given to the retrenched employees.

2.6. It was submitted that the petitioner also received a Call Letter dated 01.12.2014 for personal interview for the post of Conductor held on 11.12.2014. Though he was in possession of requisite qualification and attended the interview successfully, he was not considered for appointment on account of his overage, as the age limit of 35 years was fixed for MBC, whereas he had c