The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement for temporary workers, as well as the principle of equitable treatment for similarly placed individuals.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the order of the first respondent in I.D.No.671/92 dated 19.06.2001 and quash the same.)

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.671 of 1992 dated 19.06.2001.

2. The case of the petitioner corporation is that on 07.09.1982, they appointed the second respondent as a daily wage cook on temporary basis to fry and market fish at Sathanoor Dam Establishment. Thereafter, the direct activity of the fried fish at Sathanoor Dam was not continued. So, the petitioner corporation terminated the second respondent from work on 15.09.1990, aggrieved over which, the second respondent had filed an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.671 of 1992 before III Additional Labour Court, Madras. After the abolition of III Additional Labour Court, Madras, the said I.D.No.671 of 1992 was dealt with by the first respondent Court (Principal Labour Court, Madras). On 31.12.1992, the said I.D.No.671 of 1992 was dismissed for default. Subsequent to the dismissal of I.D.No.671 of 1992, the second respondent has filed two Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.624 & 625 of 1994 before the first respondent Court, for the following reliefs:

(i) I.A.No.624 of 1994 – for condoning the delay of 73 days in filing the I.A.No.635 of 1993.

(ii) I.A.No.625 of 1994 – for setting aside the order dated 31.12.1992 and restore I.D.No.671 of 1992 on file

3. The aforesaid Interlocutory Applications were allowed on 07.08.1996. Thereafter, when I.D.No.671 of 1992 was taken up for enquiry of 30.05.2001, the petitioner was called absent and set ex-parte. The first respondent Court vide its award dated 19.06.2001, directed the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent into service with backwages and other attendant benefits. The Labour and Employment Department, Secretariat, Chennai vide its Letter No.32066/A1/2001, informing the petitioner corporation about the said ex-parte award. As against the said ex-parte award, the petitioner corporation has filed two Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.101 & 102 of 2002 before the first respondent Court, for the following reliefs:

(i) I.A.No.101 of 2002 – for condoning the delay of 127 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte award dated 19.06.2001 passed in I.D.No.671 of 1992.

(ii) I.A.No.102 of 2002 – for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 19.06.2001 passed in I.D.No.671 of 1992 and restore I.D.No.671 of 1992 on file

However, the above I.A.Nos.101 & 102 of 2002 were came to be dismissed on 13.10.2003. Hence, challenging the ex-parte award dated 19.06.2001, passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.671 of 1992, petitioner corporation has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner corporation submitted that the petitioner corporation had filed its counter affidavit in I.D.No.671 of 1992 as well as in I.A.Nos.624 & 625 of 1994 but the same were taken into consideration by the first respondent Court. Further, in the impugned order, the first respondent Court has erroneously held that the petitioner corporation has not filed the counter statement. The petitioner corporation was not given a chance to explain its case.

4.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent was appointed as a cook purely on temporary basis and there was no order to permanent her appointment. The persons who were appointed as a daily wager on temporary basis would be ousted, as and when their services were not found necessary. The petitioner corporation has terminated the second respondent from work only for the valid reason that the direct activity of fried fish at Sathanoor Dam was not continued. She further submitted that subsequent to the termination of the second respondent from the petitioner corporation, the second respondent and 10 other s