Long-serving temporary employees may be regularized despite lack of sanctioned posts, emphasizing the need to address unfair labour practices in public institutions.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

All the appeals are at the instance of the University which claims to be aggrieved by the common judgment of the writ Court dated 29.05.2020, wherein the writ Court modified the award of the labour Court directing reinstatement of all the employees with continuity of service while denying them back wages.

The background facts that led to the Industrial Dispute are as follows:-

2. The University which was established on 16.10.2002 under an enactment of the State Legislature viz., the Thiruvalluvar University Act , 2002 was originally established with a sanctioned staff strength of 22 non- teaching staff. The other required staff were engaged by the University on a temporary basis. All these employees were appointed on various dates as temporary employees and it is not in dispute that they have served for quite a long number of years from the date of their appointment till their services were terminated by the University, which led to the industrial disputes being raised in I.D.Nos.61 of 2015 to 108 of 2015 and 110 to 126 of 2015.

3. The workmen were terminated because they went on an illegal strike, when attempts were made by the University to resolve the issue amicably. This termination resulted in industrial disputes being raised. The labour Court by its award dated 12.04.2018 directed reinstatement of the workmen on the conclusion that the University has committed unfair labour practice as defined in part 1 of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act against the 66 employees. The labour Court also concluded that all the 66 employees are entitled to be made permanent as directly recruited by the University.

4. It is this award which was subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition. The labour Court also awarded 30% back wages to the employees. Aggrieved by the direction to reinstate, the University filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.37681 of 2016. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages to the extent of 70%, the workman filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.17793 of 2017. The University also filed W.P.No.16817 and 16818 of 2018 seeking to set aside the award in I.D.No.161 of 2014 and I.D.No.50 of 2015 which related to certain individual employees.

5. The writ Court upon examination of the material on record confirmed the findings of the labour Court that the University has engaged in unfair labour practice. The writ Court also concluded that though the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act , 1981 would not apply, the workmen who had worked for sufficient number of years would be entitled to regularization.

6. The claim was resisted by the University contending that there were only 22 sanctioned posts in the University and all the employees who are before the Court were appointed to non-sanctioned posts without a proper recruitment process and they did not also possess the required qualification. They were termed as back door entrants. The judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 was invoked by the University to support its contentions. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harinandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India and another reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 , wherein, it was held that the labour Court cannot grant permanent status when there are no sanctioned posts available.

7. On behalf of the workmen, it was urged that once the labour Court comes to the conclusion that the University had adopted unfair labour practice, it can always direct the University to create posts and employ the workmen, who were working for sufficiently long number of years in the temporary cadre.

8. The writ Court also referred to several communications by the University to the Government seeking sanction to regularize these employees. No doubt, those letters are now characterized as letters written without authority. To our pointed query as to whether any action has been taken against the author