Continuous service exceeding statutory thresholds grants rights to permanent employment status, and termination without required compensation violates labor laws, irrespective of diplomatic immunity.

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, dated 21.10.2022 made in I.D.No.127 of 2019. By the said award, the Claim Petition filed by the petitioner, claiming reinstatement into service with all back wages and continuity of service, stood rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Clerk/Typist with the respondent management namely, the Deputy High Commission for the Democratic, Socialist, Republic of Sri Lanka at Chennai on 01.03.2008. After three months, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Again, on 26.09.2008, she was appointed as Consular Assistant. Ever since, she was working continuously without any break in service. While so, on 17.09.2012, an order was issued appointing her for further period of three years. By the letters, dated 16.12.2016 and 19.12.2017, the petitioner's services were extended. However, by the letter, dated 21.12.2018, the services of the petitioner were terminated and she was relieved from the post on 31.12.2018 by issuing a cheque for Rs.40,014.50 ps for one month salary. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute. The conciliation failed.

3. The petitioner's Claim Petition was taken on file as I.D.No.127 of 2019. After receipt of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent management and they were set ex parte. The petitioner let in oral and documentary evidence. She examined herself as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-10 were marked. The Labour Court took up the matter for consideration. The Labour Court considered Clause-2 of the appointment letter that says that the petitioner was temporary, non-pensionable employee and cannot claim any permanent employment under the Government of Srilanka or any gratuity thereof. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that the appointment will be terminated by one month prior notice. Therefore, when the petitioner is appointed with those terms and conditions, she cannot claim permanency and upon completion of the period of contract, when the petitioner was terminated by paying one month salary, the same needs no interference. Accordingly, the Labour Court rejected the Claim Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Even before this Court, even notice was served on the respondent, none appears on behalf of the respondent management.

5. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court totally ignored the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 as well as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while deciding the issue. When the petitioner has put in long number of years of service from the year 2008 onwards, the provision under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be invoked as it is a contract employment and therefore, non-employment would amount to retrenchment and in the absence of payment of any compensation, the same is illegal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and perused the material records of the case. The following two questions arise for consideration in the present case:-

(i) Whether or not the award of the Labour Court, in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner agreed to the terms in the appointment order, is sustainable?

(ii) Whether the respondent ma