- (1.) TAMIL Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, called TWAD hereinafter, has invoked, this Court's writ jurisdiction against the order (award) of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, in Industrial Dispute No. 394/85 under which the demand of 27 workmen that they should be made permanent has been declared justified and accordingly ordered.
(2.) ALLEGING inter alia that the said 27 employees and ten others were engaged in various jobs under the petitioner and were employed against the sanctioned posts accorded for maintaining, a certain scheme of work for periods for a number of years, yet they were treated as purely temporary employees, the workmen raised an industrial dispute seeking a declaration that they were permanent employees and that they should accordingly be absorbed on permanent basis TWAD Board entered appearance and maintained that they were temporary/casual employees who can be made permanent only by the Managing Director of the Board in accordance with its policy, their employment was on the condition that they would be removed from the employment on the handing over of this scheme to the local bodies as the Board engaged them only for such schemes to be executed and thus for the work of the scheme concerned.
(3.) ON the facts that were placed before the Labour Court, it noticed as follows : "it is not in dispute that the services of the above workmen are essential to maintain the scheme under the control of respondent Board. In fact the Superintending Engineer has stated in the letter Ex. W. 10 that there are 14 NMR appointed before 1977 and that there are 24 NMR appointed after 1977 and that they have no experience in maintaining this scheme and that the department cannot afford to lose their service. Under G. O. dated January 21, 1984, respondent has clearly stated that the question of making the 38 NMR workmen permanent basis is under consideration by the Government. Ex-W-3 the letter addressed to S. E. by the KK. dated October 15, 1981 will show that 44 employees under various categories are essential to carry on the scheme. It is not denied even in the counter statement that the workmen mentioned in the claim statement or in the additional claim statement have not completed one year service or two year service as the case may be. Ex. M. 1 is the copy of the Muster Roll. Most of the entries are not legible. However, the posts to which all these workers were appointed and their length of service noted in the claim statement are not denied in the counter statement. Therefore there can be no difficulty in holding that the workers mentioned in the claim statement are put up in the length of service detailed in the relevant column therein. ' 3. The Labour Court also noticed that the respondent before it did not deny that the workmen were entitled to permanent status. The only contention before the Labour Court was that they could be made permanent only by the Managing Director, that they were appointed on temporary basis and that they could be removed on the handing over of the scheme to the local body. The Board, however, maintained that it had written to the Government for ratification of the appointment, and the Government's reply was awaited. Before the arguments concluded the Government's order in G. O. Ms. No. 380 ratifying the appointment of workers on temporary basis was received. The Board, upon this, contended, according to the facts mentioned in the award : "at the time of arguments also, it is contended by the respondent that the G. O. Ms. No. 380 ratified appointment even though it was purely temporary and that it does not confer any right on the employees to claim benefit from the date of the original temporary appointment and that they will get the benefits intended for the permanent employees only from the date on which they are made permanent employees. ";