LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-531

MANAGEMENT OF ARINGNAR ANNA ZOOLOGICAL PARK VANDALUR Vs. WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN ARIGNAR ANNA ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Decided On October 26, 2009
MANAGEMENT OF ARINGNAR ANNA ZOOLOGICAL PARK, VANDALUR, CHENNAI Appellant
V/S
WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN ARIGNAR ANNA ZOOLOGICAL PARK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the Management of Arignar Anna Zoological Park, aggrieved by the award passed in I.D. No. 477/1997 by which the member of the first respondent Association was directed to be reinstated with all service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent Association is that their members were casual labours and their details are given as follows; "Vernacular matter omitted." THEy were all employed to look after the animals and attending other connected works in the Zoo. THE petitioner engaged about 170 people for maintenance of the Zoo and all of a sudden the members of the first respondent Association, were orally terminated from service. Aggrieved by that the union raised industrial dispute. However the Tamil Nadu Government refused to refer the matter for adjudication and against which the union was compelled to file W.P. No. 5198 and 7272/1988. This Court by an order dated March 17, 1997, directed the Government to reconsider the matter so that the matter could be decided by the Labour Court. Subsequently the matter was referred for adjudication.

(3.) AFTER appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Zoological Park's termination of the services of the members of the petitioner is unjust and illegal and further held that utilizing the service of the petitioner as casual labour even though the petitioner was having permanent vacancy would amount to unfair labour practice. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the labour Court relied upon various documents, which were exhibited. Apart from that the Labour Court found that even though the petitioner Park was in possession of the documents which were necessary for adjudication, they were not filed before the Court and as a result adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner for deliberately not producing the relevant documents before the Court.