MANAGEMENT S A 62 PERIYAKALVARAYAN MALAIVAL MAKKAL PERUM PALNOKKU CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks to quash the award of the first Respondent dated 19.09.2001 in I.D. No. 168 of 2000. By the impugned award, the first Respondent directed the second Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with all back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The second Respondent joined the services of the Petitioner as mini lorry Driver on 20.12.1996. His services were regularised with effect from 01.11.1998 based on the resolution of the Petitioner dated 28.11.1998. The benefits of the settlement reached under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act were extended to the second Respondent. According to the second Respondent, on 09.06.1999, without any rhyme or reason, he was issued with an order of termination. It is stated that at the time of termination, his salary was Rs. 2,980/-. The Petitioner does not dispute the above facts. The only contention of the Petitioner was that under Rule 149(2) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, no one could have been employed except through the Employment Exchange and since the second Respondent was employed in violation of the said Rule, his appointment itself was illegal. It was then contended that at the time of the appointment of the second Respondent, the Petitioner-society had two vehicles and since one of the vehicles broke down, there was no need for a second driver and therefore, the second Respondent's services came to be terminated. When the issue was taken before the first Respondent-Labour Court by way of an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 168 of 2000, the first Respondent, by the impugned award, after relying upon the decisions, (Senthilkumar A. v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,2000 4 CTC 485); (Kovilpatti Co-operative Marketing Society v. Labour Court, 2001 1 LLN 542) and, (The president, Sri Rangam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Anr.,1996 ILR(Mad) 1003) and after finding that there was no infirmity in the appointment of the second Respondent and the further fact that there was violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that the termination of the services of the second Respondent was not justified and consequently directed the Petitioner to reinstate the second Respondent with all back wages and continuity of service.

(3.) The award came to be passed on 19.09.2001 and subsequent to the award when the Petitioner preferred the present writ petition, by way of interim order dated 07.03.2003, the Petitioner was directed to pay the last drawn wages of the second Respondent from the date of the award. Further, since the Petitioner expressed its willingness to reinstate the second Respondent, such direction to pay the last drawn wages was restricted to the date of filing of the writ petition. The said order was subsequently modified by order dated 21.03.2003 directing the Petitioner to pay 17-B wages till the second Respondent was reinstated. As aforementioned, the Petitioner also offered reinstatement of the second Respondent by its communication dated 04.04.2003 and he was ultimately reinstated on 25.06.2003, as disclosed by the second Respondent in his letter dated 11.08.2003. Another order came to be passed on 06.10.2003 in WPMP No. 9577 of 2003 in W.P. No. 7436 of 2003 directing the Petitioner to pay wages to the second Respondent commensurate with his nature of work or on par with others doing work of similar nature. It is stated that the Petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No. 2357 of 2003 and the order dated 06.10.2003 was stayed. It is further stated that on 19.08.2006, the writ appeal itself came to be disposed of with a direction to dispose of the writ petition on merits. In the said circumstances, the subsequent development had taken place, by which the second Respondent has been reinstated by the Petitioner on and from 25.06.2003. In the above stated back ground, challenge has been made to the impugned award.