1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)Nos.4176 to 4182 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2 and 2 of 2011 R.Navaneethakrishnan : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4176/2011 A.Kuppandi : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4177/2011 C.Ganesan : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4178/2011 K.Ganapathy : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4179/2011 R.Elangovan : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4180/2011 V.Rengan : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4181/2011 M.Deivendran : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4182/2011 Vs. 1.The Management, Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 187, North Veli Street, Madurai-1. 2.The Management, Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trichy Road, Dindigul. 3.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. : Respondents in all W.Ps. COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent relating to his order dated 27.12.2010 in I.D.Nos.76,78,83,84,85,86 and 94 of 1991, respectively and quash the same as illegal and direct the first and second respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service with back wages and all other attendant benefits. For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi ******** COMMON ORDER ****** Since the issues involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, the third respondent herein dated 27.12.2010, in I.D.Nos.76,78,83,84,85,86 and 94 of 1991, respectively with a further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 direction to the first and second respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service with back wages and all other attendant benefits. 3. The short background of the matter is set out hereunder: (a) The petitioners have filed applications under Section 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the first and second respondents claiming reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and all other benefits. Their case is that they joined the first respondent Management and paid Rs.15/- as daily wages. They have been terminated without enquiry. They addressed a communication to the Management to provide them employment. However, no reply was received from the Management. Hence, the petitioners have raised industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, who has submitted the failure report to the Government. Thus, they have approached the Labour Court alleging that they have been terminated without due notice and without following the principles of natural justice. (b) Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent before the Labour Court contending that it is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and it is under the control of the Co-operative Department of the State Government. They had engaged different categories of employees at the Head Office and also at the Branch Offices with required qualifications as per the provisions and rules of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Bye-laws framed thereunder. The Branch Managers absolutely have no power to appoint or terminate the service of the employee. As the Board of Management of most of the Co-operative Institutions were superseded for malpractices, the Special Officers have been appointed to man the institution. In unavoidable circumstances, with the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Branch Managers have been engaging watchman or messenger on casual and daily basis. The petitioners were not recruited as regular employees. The petitioners have not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. They have been engaged purely on casual basis and on daily wage basis. Hence, the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement as a matter of right is not maintainable. Their appointments are irregular and illegal. (c) The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit before the Labour Court, which contains the following facts: The petitioners were not at all in service of the first respondent on the date of the formation of the second respondent. The petitioners never worked in the second respondent bank. They have no locus standi to get any relief against the second respondent. The second respondent has got no records to ascertain whether the petitioners were employed in Gopalpatti branch. Hence, the proceedings initiated before the Labour Court is liable to be dismissed. (d) On the side of the petitioners, three documents have been filed, viz. Ex.W.1, dated 08.12.1990, the failure report, Ex.W.2, dated 18.07.1995, copy of the first respondent's proceedings and Ex.W.3, dated 11.09.2001, copy of the letter sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai by the first respondent. Some of the petitioners have been examined themselves as P.W.1. On the side of the respondents, Exs.M.1 to M.11 have been filed and marked. They have also examined one witness. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (e) Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that no records have been produced by the petitioners to establish that they have been appointed on permanent basis. That apart, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners have been appointed illegally without following the procedures and hence, they cannot claim any relief under Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Labour Court opined that in case of fresh appointment to similar kinds of posts, the petitioners could be considered and take part in the selection process, if they have not reached the age of superannuation. Challenging those orders, the present Writ Petitions have been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners have been appointed by the first respondent and they have been terminated without following due process of law. However, when a specific question was put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that whether any documents have been filed by them before the Labour Court to establish that they have been legally appointed permanently by the first respondent and that any records are available to show that they have been appointed on a particular date, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that no records have been filed before the Labour Court. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners wants to rely on certain proceedings before this Court, which were not form part of the records before the Labour Court and submits that the said documents will establish that the petitioners have been appointed on permanent basis. However, I am not inclined to entertain the said documents, since as stated already, those documents have not been filed before the Labour Court. Had it been filed before the Labour Court, the first and second respondents would have an opportunity to put forth their plea before the Labour Court. Apart from that, if those documents have been filed through the petitioners, the first and second respondents would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on such documents. In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to look into those documents. 5. The Labour Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not filed any records to show that they have been appointed on permanent basis. That apart, the petitioners have also not established that they have been appointed legally, by following due process of law. 6. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court, since I do not find any illegality or infirmity in those orders. 7. In fine, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1. The Management, Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 187, North Veli Street, Madurai-1. 2. The Management, Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trichy Road, Dindigul. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. + 2 ccs' to Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Advocate, SR No.19331 + 2 ccs' to Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Advocate, SR No.19285 Common Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4176 to 4182 of 2011 Dated: 21.06.2011 SML RJ/6.7.11 4p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/