G.Charles Balasundaram v. The Deputy General Manager

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.1.2007 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.9291 of 2003G.Charles Balasundaram.. Petitioner vs. 1. The Deputy General Manager, Pondicherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Ltd., Agro House, Thattachavady, Pondicherry 605 009. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karaikal.. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For respondents : Mr.T.P.Manoharan for R1 O R D E RThe writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the Award, dated 13.1.2003, in I.D.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the second respondent andquash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to re-employ the petitioner with all consequentialbenefits.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the year, 1989. He was paid a sum ofRs.39/- per day being a casual employee. While so, after March 1993, the first respondent had declined toengage the petitioner in service. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the concerned Labour Officer. Whilethe matter was pending, the Managing Director of the first respondent Corporation had informed the petitionerthat his case was considered by the Board, for absorption, and that he should withdraw the petition pendingbefore the Labour Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner did not pursue the petition before the Labour Officer.Since no steps had been taken to absorb the petitioner in service, he had submitted an application to therespondent Corporation for settling the employees' Provident Fund dues. Since he was without employment andfor the reason that he had to take care of his family, he had gone abroad, for about 13 months, in search of a job. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He had gone away from the month of September, 1996 till the month of October, 1997. 3. The petitioner had initiated conciliation proceedings and since it had failed, the matter was referred tothe Labour Court, in I.D.No.6 of 2001. The labour Court has dismissed the petition, without properconsideration of the materials on record. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition challengingthe award passed by the labour Court. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that thepetitioner had suppressed the material facts and documents relating to the case and had belatedly raised theIndustrial Dispute making vexatious and untenable claims. 5.It has been stated that the first respondent Corporation is a Government of Pondicherryundertaking and a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has been established mainly for thepurpose of the development of Agriculture and other agro relevant activities in the Union Territory ofPondicherry. Permanent employees had been engaged to carry out the regular work of the first respondentCorporation. However, to attend to the occasional and temporary miscellaneous work, daily rated employeeshad been engaged, from time to time. With regard to such occasional and temporary miscellaneous work, thepetitioner had been engaged in the Karaikal branch of the corporation, from 27.5.1991, depending upon therequirement, paying him the wages at the rate of Rs.39/- per day. The petitioner was neither a regular employeenor a temporary employee of the Corporation and therefore, his name had not been included in the rolls of theregular employees of the Corporation. During the month of September-November 1992, the petitioner had gotan employment in Saudi Arabia and therefore, he had left India. Hence, the petitioner had not turned up forwork from 4.11.1992. Since the petitioner had voluntarily left seeking employment in Saudi Arabia, he hadclaimed the monetary benefits, payable under the employees' provident fund scheme, 1952, and the employees'Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and he had also received the same. He has also prepared and submitted theForm-19, under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, wherein, he had stated the date of leaving theservices of the corporation, as 10.11.1992. Even in the other Forms, which he had submitted the same date hasbeen given. It only goes to show that he had voluntarily left from 10.11.1992 and had not presented himself foremployment thereafter. Suppressing all the facts as stated above, the petitioner had raised an Industrial Disputes,in I.D.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the second respondent, stating that he was removed from service from theyear, 1993, and that he had been appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the respondent Corporation from themonth of February, 1989, and he was being paid a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. 6.However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that themodel standing orders would be applicable to him and accordingly, even if it was taken, as stated by therespondent Corporation, that he had abandoned his service or that he had stopped from work, an enquiry shouldhave been conducted, since he was coming under the category of workman. 7.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Corporation hadsubmitted that the petitioner was only a daily rated employee, being paid a sum of Rs.39/- per day, and only onthat basis the petitioner had turned up for work to carry out the temporary miscellaneous work. Further, thepetitioner had made a representation for the first time, on 13.10.1999, with regard to his alleged non-employment from the year, 1993. No worthwhile explanation had been given for such a long delay in raising theissue of alleged non-employment. Inspite of the petitioner being asked to file his passport, he had refused to doso. Since such production of the passport would show that he had not been present in India during the relevantperiod. Therefore, adverse inference could be gathered against the claims made by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.On analysing the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as for the firstrespondent and on a perusal of the documents available, it is clear that the labour Court had taken intoconsideration all the relevant factors, before it had passed the final Award, dated 13.1.2003, in I.D.No.6 of2001. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to support his contentions to persuade this Court toconclude that the award was wrongly made. 9.From the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not in a position to find any flaw in thefindings of the labour Court in its Award, dated 13.1.2003. Further, this Court, while exercising its powersunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be persuaded to reappraise the evidence, based on whichthe labour Court had come to its conclusion, as held by a decision of the Supreme Court in Hari ShankarSharma and Others Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corpn., and others ((2002) 1 SCC 337). In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar/true copy/Sub Assistant Registrar.To1. The Deputy General Manager, Pondicherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Ltd., Agro House, Thattachavady, Pondicherry 605 009 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karaikal+ One cc to Mr. T.P. Manoharan Advocate SR 5045.GG (co)sg 6/2/07W.P.No.No.9291 of 2003 29.1.2007