LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-286

VICE CHANCELLOR ANNA UNIVERSITY Vs. PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS

Decided On April 21, 2010
VICE-CHANCELLOR ANNA UNIVERSITY Appellant
V/S
PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the 1st respondent, Principal Labour Court, Chennai, ordering reinstatement of the 2nd respondent in service of the petitioner, Anna University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') with full backwages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows :- The 2nd respondent, J.Selvaraj, was engaged on daily wage basis by the Executive Engineer and Estate Officer, who was deputed from the Public Works Department of the State Government to carry out certain construction and maintenance work relating to the petitioner University on casual basis and was also paid from and out of the contingent funds. The 2nd respondent was given daily wages only as a non-muster roll employee. It is the further pleading of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was engaged by the Estate Officer to keep a watch on the construction materials belonging to the University. As it was decided by the University to put up a pucca construction on the Taramani land, the 2nd respondent was engaged as watchman at the Taramani land from the Oct., 1987 to 8th Dec., 1987, 14th Sept., 1988 to 12th Feb., 1989 and from 3rd Sept., 1990 to 18th Jan., 1992 depending upon the exigency of construction work carried out on the Taramani land. Apart from the above mentioned dates, the 2nd respondent was not engaged continuously as alleged by him in his claim petition laid before the Principal Labour Court. It is further submitted that the University cannot employ any workman, including clerk, gardener and watchman other than through sponsorship from the employment exchange. Therefore, it is amply clear that it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that he was engaged through employment exchange as a regular employee against any permanent vacancy in the office of the petitioner University. Admittedly, there is no such post of Building Supervisor in the University so to say that the 2nd respondent was appointed by the University as Building Supervisor.

(3.) Whileso, the 2nd respondent left the place of work at Taramani without authority or permission of the Executive Engineer and Estate Officer and went to Anna University Main Campus at Guindy and was found committing an offence of theft by stealing two iron rods belonging to the University. Therefore, in view of the above said incident, that took place on 18th Jan., 1992, the 2nd respondent was stopped from further engagement as a daily wager by the Estate Officer. Suppressing all these facts in the claim statement, the 2nd respondent has laid the claim statement before the 1st respondent, Labour Court, challenging the termination and sought for reinstatement with backwages along with continuity of service. The Labour Court, without noticing the material evidence required to establish the claim made by the 2nd respondent that he was employed by the University on daily wage basis, had erroneously allowed the claim made by the 2nd respondent as though the 2nd respondent was engaged by the University from 1987 to 1997 and that he was wrongly terminated without holding proper enquiry when he was not employed at all by the University as admittedly he has not been employed through employment exchange. The claim of the 2nd respondent, instead of being rejected, was erroneously allowed by directing the petitioner University to reinstate the workman in service with full backwages. On the abovesaid submissions, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.