The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board Chennai v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 9..6..2008Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. Nos. 15111 to 15113 of 1998 The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage BoardChennai.. Petitioner in all W.Ps.vs.1.K. Subramaniam.. R1 in W.P. No. 15111 / 982.Iyenthurai.. R1 in W.P. No. 15112 / 983.K. Jokkupaiyan.. R1 in W.P. No. 15113 / 984.The Presiding OfficerLabour CourtSalem .. R2 in all W.Ps.Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seekingfor issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertainingto the common Award dated 27.2.1998 made in I.D. Nos. 29 to 31 of 1997respectively on the file of the Labour Court and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mrs. Sudharsana Sundarin all W.Ps. For Respondent1: Mr. D. Hariparanthamanin all W.Ps.C O M M O N O R D E RHeard the arguments of Mrs. Sudarsana Sundar, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the petitioner Tamil Nadu Water Supply andDrainage Board and Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearingfor the first respondent in each of the writ petition and perused therecords.2.These writ petitions are filed by the Managing Director ofthe Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board [for short, 'TWADBoard'] against the common Award dated 27.02.1998 passed by the secondrespondent Labour Court. 3.It is seen that W.P. No. 15111 of 1998 is filed against theAward passed in I.D. No. 29 of 1997 where the first respondent is one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ K.Subramaniam. W.P. No. 15112 of 1998 is directed against the Awardin I.D. No. 30 of 1997 where the first respondent is one Iyenthurai.W.P. No. 15113 of 1998 is directed against the Award in I.D. No. 31 of1997 where the first respondent is one Jokkupaiyan. In the commonAward dated 27.02.1998, the second respondent Labour Court held thatthe termination of the three workmen was illegal and directed thepetitioner to reinstate them but without backwages. 4.These three workmen were employed as NMR workers. Inrespect of I.D. No. 29 of 1997, the case of the first respondent wasthat he had worked from 23.12.1987 to 07.7.1989 with breaks whichwere deliberately given by the petitioner Management. In thecounter statement filed before the Labour Court, the petitioner hadadmitted the following spells of employment put in by the firstrespondent. (a)28.11.1989 to 29.12.1989(b)04.01.1990 to 29.3.1990(c)05.4.1990 to 11.4.1990(d)08.5.1990 to 31.5.1990(e)19.7.1991 to 28.12.1991In the same way, the first respondents in the other two writ petitionshave also given the details of the employment. 5.The Labour Court had also, as a matter of fact, found thatthese workmen have completed 240 days of service within a period of 12months by including weekly off and festival holidays. The contentionof the petitioner was that no worker had put in 240 days in anycalendar year and no one had worked beyond 480 days in two calendaryears to get the benefit of T.N. Act 46 of 1981. Each time when thefirst respondent in each of the petitions were appointed, it was aspecific appointment, which also came to an end as found in the termsof contract. 6.The Labour Court held that in view of Section 2(oo) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, [for short, 'I.D. Act'], it would be aretrenchment. It also held that the action of the petitioner ingranting deliberate breaks was an act of "unfair labour practice" andsince they had worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12calender months, their termination ought to have been brought to anend by following the conditions precedent found in Section 25 F of theI.D. Act. The Labour Court also held that since the disputes wereraised after several months, they were not eligible for any backwages.The Labour Court also took note of the settlement dated 08.8.1996reached between the petitioner and the workmen under Section 12(3) ofthe I.D. Act (marked as Ex. W.4) wherein similarly placed workmen werereinstated. It is against this Award, the present writ petitionshave been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.Pending the writ petitions, this Court by an order dated12.01.2000, directed the petitioner Management to pay Rs.18,000/- tothe first respondent in each of the writ petition and also to pay Rs.750/- as last drawn wage in terms of Section 17 B of the I.D. Act.8.Mrs. Sudarsana Sundar, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the Award of the Labour Court was illegal and theLabour Court had not found, as a matter of fact, that the workmen hadnot completed 240 days in any calendar year. In any event, eachappointment is a specific appointment and in the light of theexception found under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, it would notamount to retrenchment. She also submitted that in any event, theorders of reinstatement in such cases ought not to have been granted.9.Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the firstrespondent in all these writ petitions relied upon the followingdecisions of this Court and the Supreme Court for the proposition thatwhen an employer gives deliberate breaks in service, that would notcome within the exception carved out in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D.Act:-(a)K. Rajendran v. Director (Personnel), Project and EquipmentCorporation of India Ltd., New Delhi and another [1992 (1) L.L.J.150](b)P. Shanmuganathan v. The Registrar, Tamil University,Thanjavur and others [1997 Writ L.R. 180] (DB)(c)S.M. Nilajkar and others v. Telecom District Manager,Karnataka [2003 (4) SCC 27](d)Manager (P&A), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Chennai v.G. Radhakrishnan [2005 (2) L.L.N. 881] (DB)10.He also further relied upon the judgment of this Court inP.R. Ramachandran and others v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply andDrainage Board and another [1996 (1) L.L.J. 823] wherein in similarcircumstances, this Court granted relief to several workmen byentertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11.The following passages found in paragraphs 5 and 6 of P.R.Ramachandran's case (cited supra) can be usefully extracted below:Para 5:"In the instance case, the respondents have acted quitecontrary to the principles of natural justice and allaccepted rules of procedure and when admittedly, theimpugned orders were passed in utter violation of theprinciples of natural justice, this Court should notonly come to the aid of the aggrieved party, but it hasa duty to do so. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Para 6:In an identical situation Raju, J. rejected the plea ofdriving the workman to forums under the Act and heldthat for non compliance of Section 25F of the Act, writremedy is very much available and directed theworkman's reinstatement with backwages...."In view of the above, the first two contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner must fail.12.Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment rendered on 19.01.1996,the TWAD Board itself had entered into a settlement on 08.8.1996 underSection 12(3) of the I.D. Act (marked as Ex. W.4) granting relief toworkmen similarly placed. Therefore, this takes care of the thirdcontention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In thepresent case, the Labour Court did not grant backwages for theworkmen. 13.Therefore, in the light of the above binding precedents, allthe three writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, theyare dismissed and the Award impugned in these writ petitions areconfirmed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem.2. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chennai.+3 cc to Mr.Sudharsana Sundar, Advocate, SR.No.28333.+1 cc to Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, Advocate, SR.No.27736.Ntk (co)krd / 13.6.08W.P. Nos. 15111 to 15113 of 1998