IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26-04-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2690 of 2006 Paul Pandian .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Deputy Director, Central Institute of Plastic Engg. & Tech (CIPET), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 2. The Presiding Officer, The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Block No.6, Ist Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent, dated 24.6.2004, made in I.D.No.79 of 2002 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from 31.7.2000 onwards with backwages and all other attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Muthukrishnan For Respondents : Mr.V.Perumal (R1) O R D E R The petitioner has stated that, based on his educational qualifications, he had joined as an Apprentice at Aquasub Engineering, Coimbatore, in the machine shop section, during the year 1996-1997. After he had completed his training in Milling he had been issued with a certificate recognising his successful completion of the apprenticeship. Thereafter, he had appeared for an apprenticeship examination in Machinist. Later, he had worked as a Machinist in Texmo Industries, Coimbatore. While so, he had applied for being employed in the first respondent institute. He was selected and appointed as a Cylindrical Grinding Operator in the first respondent institute. After the petitioner had undergone training for a week, he had been regularly appointed in the first respondent institute, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.11.1998, on a consolidated pay of Rs.1700/-. As he was appointed as a full time regular employee he had been entrusted with ISRO work. However, the management of the first respondent institute had directed the petitioner, on 19.7.2000, not to come for work, from 31.7.2000. No termination order had been issued to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with backwages, from 31.7.2000. The second respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, had passed an award, dated 24.6.2004, in I.D.No.79 of 2002, rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner, who was a regular employee of the first respondent Institute could not have been considered only as a trainee. The training for the petitioner was only for a period of twelve months. However, he had worked for 21 months. Thus, it is clear that he was a full time employee of the first respondent institute. Further, the petitioner had been paid a consolidated sum of Rs.1,700/-, from 1.11.1998 and later, it had been enhanced to Rs.2580/-. However, for a trainee a fixed sum of Rs.1500/- had been paid, as stipend, during the training. 3. It had also been stated that a trainee would not be called upon to execute orders, independently. However, the petitioner had been given independent work. He was put incharge of the Jig boring machine. Therefore, the petitioner, who had worked for more than 600 days, continuously, without any break, cannot be terminated from service, by the management of the first respondent institute, without following the procedures prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the other service laws applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service, with effect from 31.7.2000, with backwages and all other attendant benefits. 4. The second respondent Labour Court had, by its award, dated 24.6.2004, made in I.D.No.79 of 2002, rejected the claims made by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not been appointed in a regular sanctioned post. The petitioner was only a trainee receiving a consolidated amount, as stipend. No salary had been paid to the petitioner, by the management of the first respondent Institute, as a regular employee. If the petitioner had been a regular employee the General Provident Fund subscription and other deductions would have been made from the amount paid to him. No such deductions had been made in the case of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The second respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had also held that if the petitioner had been a regular employee he would have been appointed by the management of the first respondent Institute, by way of an appointment order. No such appointment order had been issued to the petitioner by the management of the first respondent Institute. Since, the petitioner was only a Trainee Operator, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been terminated from service, illegally, by the management of the first respondent Institute. The petitioner has not shown by sufficient evidence that he was a regular employee, appointed in a sanctioned post in the first respondent Institute. 6. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first respondent reiterating the reasons stated by the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, for arriving at its conclusions, while rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had relied on the following decisions in support his contentions: 1) E.S.I Corpn. V. TATA engg. & Loco. Co. (1976 I LLJ 81) 2) Kamal Kumar V. P.O., Labour Court and Others (1996- II-LLJ 877) 3) Babulal V. RSRTC (1999(2) LLJ 1076) 4) E.S.I. Corpn V. Andhra Prabha Pvt. Ltd. 5) Factory Manager, Cimmco Wagon Factory V. Virendra Kumar Sharma (2000(6) SCC 554) 6) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Bhola Sinha (2005(2) SCC 470) 7) Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. V. Sadashib Behera and others (2005(2) SCC 396) 8) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V. Central Arecanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Cop. Ltd. (2006 (2) SCC 381) and 9) The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University V. Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University (2007(4) CTC 636) 8. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent and the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ show, by sufficient evidence, that he had been a regular employee of the first respondent Institute. No appointment order had been produced by the petitioner to show that he had been appointed, as per the conditions of service applicable to him, in a sanctioned post. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he was a regular employee of the first respondent institute and not merely a trainee. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient grounds to set aside the award of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 24.6.2004, made in I.D.No.79 of 2002. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.The Deputy Director, Central Institute of Plastic Engg. & Tech (CIPET), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 2. The Presiding Officer, The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Block No.6, Ist Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006. 1 cc To Mr.G.MuthuKrishnan, Advocate, SR.29566 1 cc To Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate, SR.28598 Order in Writ Petition No.2690 of 2006 KGK (CO) RH (10.5.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/