LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-581

S PALANISAMY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF JYOTHI BUS TRANSPORT

Decided On June 19, 2008
S PALANISAMY Appellant
V/S
MANAGEMENT OF JYOTHI BUS TRANSPORT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the award passed on 28 July 1994 by the Labour Court at Coimbatore, second respondent herein in I D. No. 390 of 1990 and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back -wages and for further orders.

(2.) FACTS leading to the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner joined duty as checking inspector in the respondent -Transport -company on 30 June 1980 and was paid a salary of Rs. 195, lower than the minimum wages fixed by the Government. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim petition in C.P. No. 175 of 1985 under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the same was ordered on 15 April 1985. Pursuant to the order, his wage was raised as per the Minimum Wages Act at Rs. 521. Therefore, the management has indulged many indirect activities to somehow eliminate the petitioner. The petitioner applied for three days medical leave from 23 February 1987 to 25 February 1987 with the permission of the management and when he returned to join duty, he was asked to work in the office and in his place, posted one T.K. Muthusamy to act as checking inspector. The said act was immediately objected by the petitioner. While that being the position, the petitioner was shocked to receive an order of retrenchment, dated 28 February 1997, along with a cheque for Rs.2,676 towards retrenchment compensation. In this connection, the petitioner also received a letter from the management, dated 25 February 1987, directing him to produce medical certificate and also the fitness certificate to join duty. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the management has retrenched his services inspite of the above letter asking him to join duty without providing any opportunity to join duty. Therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Coimbatore, challenging the termination. A failure report was sent to the Government and the Government was pleased to refuse the reference of the dispute stating that it is a clear case of retrenchment and therefore, could not be referred for adjudication, vide order, dated 30 August 1988. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4978 of 1990 and this Court, by order, dated 15 June 1990, directed the Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication within 12 weeks from the date of order. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was referred by the Government for adjudication and the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 390 of 1990 and ultimately, the Labour Court passed an award, dated 28 July 1994, holding that the petitioner 's nonemployment was justified stating that the provisions of S. 25F of the l.D. Act has been properly complied with and the said T.K. Muthusamy resigned his job as conductor subsequently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the relief as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if there was any necessity to retrench an employee due to financial constraint of reducing the expenditure, the respondent ought to have followed the principle ''last come first go '' and retrenched the junior most person in the industrial concern. Referring to the impugned order as well as the communication sent to the Government, as per S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act read with S. 61(3) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intimation sent by the respondent to the Government does not fulfil the statutory conditions laid down in S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner had moved the Labour Court for fixing the minimum wages, the respondent actuated by motive, victimised the petitioner and retrenched him from service. He also submitted that the order of retrenchment is purely an after thought to get rid of the petitioner and therefore, the mala fide intention is explicit.