Eligibility for statutory benefits under Industrial Disputes Act hinges on proving continuous service exceeding stipulated days, as demonstrated in the case.

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had set up four thermal power stations in Tamil Nadu. One of them is in Tuticorin. Contract labour running into thousands were working in the said thermal power stations. Decision was taken to abolish the contract labour. Vide Board proceedings B.P.No.17 dated 28.04.1999, the contract labour who had worked for a period of 480 days between 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998 were to be identified. A list of eligible contract workers was also prepared. The appellant was also working in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station. His immediate employer was one Chandy & Co. Unfortunately, the name of the appellant was not included in the said list. According to TNEB, the appellant had not worked for 480 days during the period from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998. He was stopped from service with effect from 28.10.1999. The only reason for such stoppage was that he had not completed 480 days during the aforesaid period.

2.The appellant raised an industrial dispute. According to him, he was eligible to be absorbed and that his non-engagement from October 1999 was not justified. The case was taken on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.49 of 2005. The Labour Court passed an award adverse to the appellant on 22.08.2011. Questioning the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.13691 of 2011. The award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the file of the Labour Court.

3.Following remand, after hearing both sides, the Labour Court passed award dated 31.10.2013 holding that since the workman had worked for 480 days in a period of 24 months prior to 01.11.1999, he was entitled to permanency. Since he was abruptly disengaged on 30.10.1999 without holding an enquiry and in violation of principles of natural justice, the termination was held as illegal. In that view of the matter, reinstatement was ordered with 50% of the backwages and other attendant benefits.

4.After the award was passed by the Labour Court, the Board took the appellant in its rolls as a regular employee in February, 2014. He was appointed as Field Assistant vide order dated 23.05.2014. Though TNEB challenged the award in its entirety by filing W.P.(MD)No.18755 of 2017, in substance, the challenge was confined to grant of 50% backwages and other benefits. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

“10. The petitioners Board has formulated a scheme based on the recommendation of Khalid Commission. The contract laborers were absorbed in the regular post. Further, the petitioners Board had taken earnest efforts to absorb the contract laborers by issuing BP 17 Proceedings dated 28.04.1999. The said BP 17 proceedings were challenged by way of writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed affirming the said Board Proceedings and the order passed in the writ petition has attained finality. Based on the said proceedings, the service of the second respondent was calculated. Since the second respondent has not worked for 480 days during the period from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998 and he was not within the conditions prescribed in the Board Proceedings No.17, hence the claim of the second respondent was not considered and he was not absorbed. In the first round of litigation, the Labour Court held against the workman. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondent filed a writ petition and in that writ petition, this Court set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and remanded the matter back. Thereafter, the impugned award was passed.

11. Now the issue is as to whether the service of the second respondent should be considered based on BP 17 proceedings or his services should be considered beyond the cut-off