MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRICHY Vs. A THIRUMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. THEy have filed the writ petition in respect of I.D.No.80/97 dated 21.12.1998 passed by the second respondent Labour Court. THE said dispute relates to the non-employment of the first respondent.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 18.09.2000 and an order of interim stay was also granted. Subsequently, the interim stay was extended and was made absolute on 3.1.2001. Despite notice, the first respondent did not appear.

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the petitioner- Management had filed a counter statement stating that since the first respondent was given appointment only for a period of 89 days and thereafter with periodical breaks in service, his services were continued in other projects. Hence, his work was purely temporary and he cannot seek for permanency. It was not true that he had worked for 430 days and it was for him to prove the same. The Labour Court upon examination of the witnesses and the materials placed before the Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 will apply, notwithstanding the artificial break given by the Board, the workers are eligible to treat that period as continuous service. In so far as the first respondent's case is concerned, the same was dealt in paragraph 18 of the impugned award. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence given by the Workman and also on the basis of exhibits in Exs.P12 to P17 came to the conclusion that the workman had put in 507 days of work with breaks in between 1 or two days. The Labour Court rejected the case that the Scheme was handed over to the local bodies and therefore, there is no scope for employment for the first respondent. The Labour Court also considered the evidence given by M.W.2 and held that inspite of the fact that NMR register was maintained, they were not able to produce any document that the first respondent did not complete 480 days' of service. Therefore, the Court held that since there was infraction of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, their non-employment was illegal.