Madras High Court · 2025

WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.28 of 2014 dated 06.08.2020 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.C.G.PethanarajFor R1 : Mr.Jerin Mathew for Mr.K.MuthumalaiORDERThe petitioner/Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union is a Co-operative Society, registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 and it is functioning as apex Co-operative Society under the administrative control of the Deputy Registrar (Non-Credit), Chennai. The petitioner Union has filed this writ petition as against the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.28 of 2014 dated 06.08.2020. 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 20212. The first respondent has raised the above industrial dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act that he has been terminated from service without considering his period of service and without following the procedures as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, by its award dated 06.08.2020, set aside the order of termination and directed the petitioner Co-operative Union to reinstate the first respondent into service along with continuity of service, however, without backwages and other attendant benefits. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Co-operative Union submits that in this case, the question of reinstatement with continuity of service does not arise that the first respondent was never engaged as a worker of the union as per the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules. The first respondent was engaged as a driver by the second petitioner on daily wage basis for driving the propaganda vehicles. The District Co-operative Unions were engaging drivers temporarily on daily 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021wage basis. In order to adopt uniform procedure, the petitioner Co-operative Union has issued a Circular dated 10.11.2010 that the drivers have to be engaged only through Security Services or Man Power Agencies on outsourcing basis. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent was engaged as a driver, through a Man Power Agency, namely, Anbu Agency, from November 2010. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner Co-operative Union had never appointed any drivers on daily wage basis or contract basis at District and State Level and never made any payment to drivers engaged by the District Co-operative Union and had not fixed any duties and responsibilities to them. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the first respondent is not entitled for regularisation and reinstatement into service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3614 of 2011 dated 30.08.2013 and submits that the first respondent has questioned the circular dated 10.11.2010 by way of filing the above writ petition, however, the same was withdrawn on 30.08.2013. 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 20215. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Rules 1988 and G.O.Ms.No.86, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 12.03.2001 and submits that Rule 146 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Rules prescribes the mode of appointment only through the District Employment Exchange, by verifying the adequate qualification, age limit and cadre strength. However, no such procedure was adopted in the case of the first respondent and therefore, he cannot be regularised in service. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Judgment of this Court in L.Justine v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court held that those, who have been appointed without adequate qualifications or beyond the cadre strength for the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001, are not entitled for regularisation under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The Justine's case was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, reported in 2004 (7) SCC 112 that those, who come 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021by backdoor, should go through that door. Therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for regularization. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the first respondent was continuously engaged as Driver in the petitioner Co-operative Union for more than 10 years through a Man Power Agency, pursuant to the circular dated 10.11.2010 and all of sudden, he was terminated from service, without following the procedures as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.8. The learned counsel for the first respondent has relied on the order passed by this Court in similar writ petition filed by a Co-operative Society in W.P.(MD)No.13868 of 2019, dated 15.09.2025 and submits that this Court has dismissed the similar writ petition filed by the Co-operative Society, holding that the Co-operative Society has not followed the procedures as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, before terminating the employee. 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 20219. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also relied on another order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 & 28468 of 2023, dated 30.07.2025 and submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case cannot be held to have overridden the power of Industrial Court in passing appropriate orders for regularisation of service, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also referred to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and submits that a workman employed in any industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer, shall not be retrenched by that employer without following the procedures as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment has to be provided and compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months has to be paid and notice must be served on the appropriate Government. 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 202111. This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 12. The first respondent was engaged as a Driver on daily wage basis by the petitioner Co-operative Union. It appears that the first respondent was allowed to continue in service for more than 10 years. Therefore, the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.28 of 2014, has arrived at the conclusion, based on the evidence adduced by the Management, which would be relevant to extract as under:“14. According to the claim of the petitioner, he joined duty on 09.07.2001 and he was removed from service on 03.03.2011. The order of removal from service dated 3.3.2011 is marked as Ex.W11 through MW1 in his cross examination. In the written arguments filed on the side of the petitioner also it is canvassed that the petitioner was appointed by 2nd respondent, paid by 2nd respondent only and the order of dismissal was issued on 03.03.2011 by 3rd respondent herein. The fact that the petitioner has been appointed by 2nd respondent and was receiving salary from it is fairly conceded in the cross examination of MW1. Though in the beginning of the 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021cross examination of MW1, he deposed that the petitioner was not removed from service by respondents, subsequently he re-affirmed that the petitioner was removed from service on 03.03.2011. The excerpt of his cross examination are as hereunder: “mth; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ xd;wpaj;jpd;K:yk; epakpf;fg;gl;L mth;fshnyna rk;gsk; tH';fg;gl;L te;Js;sJ/ kDjhuiu eh';fs; gzpePf;fk; bra;atpy;iy/ ///// ////// kDjhuh; 3/3/2011 md;W vGj;JK:ykhf gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;lhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ePjpkd;wf; nfs;tpkDjhuh; gzp epakdk; bra;jJ jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ xd;wpak;. brd;id MFk;/ kDjhuiu gzp ePf;fk; bra;jJ 3k; vjph;kDjhuh; Mthh;/”15. In a way to establish the length of service of the petitioner, the experience certificate dated 3.3.2008 & 14.06.2010 given by A.3069, Madurai District Co-operative Union Limited to the petitioner have been marked as Ex.W9 and Ex.W10 respectively. The rebuttal plea of the respondents that the experience certificates were issued to enable the petitioner from getting job elsewhere cannot be countenanced in law. Fortified by the aforesaid experience certificates, on the side of the petitioner, the letter dated 2.11.2006 sent by Department 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021of Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies marked as Ex.W1 is given emphasis and the petitioner side has also chosen to mark the G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006 as Ex.W8. The paragraph 2 of Ex.W8 reads as follows:“Based on the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 8.2.2005, the Government direct that the services of the daily wages employees working in all Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of service as on 1.1.2006 be regularised by appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in accordance with the service conditions prescribed for the post concerned, subject to their being otherwise qualified for the post”.In this connection the M.W.1 in his cross examination deposed thus:“kDjhuh; Rkhh; 10 Mz;Lfs; ,ilbtspapd;wp gzp g[hpe;jhh; vd;W vd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; brhy;ypapUf;fpnwd;/ 2 Mz;Lfspy; 480 ehl;fs; gzpg[hpe;jhy; me;j bjhHpyhspia epue;jug;gLj;j ntz;Lk; vd;w tpjp cs;sJ bjhpa[k;/ kDjhuh; Rkhh; 4000 ehl;fs; bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;Js;shh; vd;Wk; vdnt mth; epue;jug;gLj;jg;gl jFjpahdth; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 202113. The Management, in fact, has conceded before the Labour Court that the first respondent has continuously served as a driver on daily wage basis for more than 10 years.14. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules prescribes the mode of appointment by considering the cadre strength and only through employment exchange. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules prohibits any direct recruitment to any post, except by calling for a list of eligible candidates and also giving due publicity by means of announcement in the notice board of the Society and also of the affiliated Societies, inviting application from the eligible employees by the Societies. However, workers have been engaged by the Societies by way of resolution and orders for regularisation were also passed periodically by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. One of the orders of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, regularising those employees upto the year 2001, was challenged by way of a writ petition before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in L.Justine v. The Registrar of Co-operative 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021Societies, reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 has prescribed the cut off date for regularising these appointments from 09.07.1980 to 11.03.2001.The Division Bench has also held that all these appointments were made without following the procedures as contemplated under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore, these appointments are illegal appointments. The L.Justine' s case was also taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, A.Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, reported in 2004 (7) SCC 112, held that these appointments are backdoor entries and therefore, those employees have to be removed through the backdoor, through which, they have entered into service. 15. In subsequent Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556, has held as follows:“35. Umadevi is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of constitutional scheme. 36. Umadevi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exists. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is established. “ 16. In this case, as per the evidence of the Management, the first respondent was engaged as a driver, continuously, on daily wage basis, for more than 10 years. As per the circular dated 10.11.2010, he was engaged through a Man Power Agency and all of sudden, he was terminated, without following the procedures as contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.28 of 2014, interfered with the order of termination 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021and set aside the same, by award dated 06.08.2020. However, the Labour Court is not justified in granting continuity of service. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the grant of continuity of service is only to calculate the gratuity, which is eligible for the first respondent. 17. In yet another similar writ petition filed by a Co-operative Society in W.P.(MD)No.13868 of 2019, this Court, by following a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, reported in 1996 II LLJ 216 MAD, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Society, since the Society has not followed the procedures as contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 18. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.28 of 2014, dated 06.08.2020. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The first respondent shall be engaged by the petitioner Co-operative Union on daily wage basis with continuity of service as awarded by the Labour 14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.28 of 2014 dated 06.08.2020. It is made clear that the grant of continuity of service is only for the purpose of calculating the eligible gratuity and the first respondent is entitled for daily wages as per present norms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.11.2025ogy Index : Yes / No.Internet: Yes / No.NCC : Yes / No.15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.11733 of 2021 B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy WP(MD) No.11733 of 2021 04.11.202516/16