GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Pondicherry dated 03.01.2013. Management is the writ petitioner. The second respondent herein raised the industrial dispute seeking for regularisation of her service. The Tribunal through the impugned award directed the Management to confirm the service of the second respondent with retrospective effect and to give her the backwages and continuity of services and all attendant benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/Management is as follows: The Government of Pondicherry issued a Gazette Notification on 04.07.2005, thereby transferring the petitioner to the Company Swadeshee Bharathi Textile Mills Limited, Pondicherry. The said arrangement was made only as a welfare measure and not for earning profit. Even after taking over, the Mill is suffering heavy loss and the working capital of the Mill has been completely eroded. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute on the basis that she was working in the petitioner Mill as daily wager from the year 1995 to 2008. The petitioner filed a detailed counter statement before the Tribunal and denied all the averments made in the claim petition. The petitioner specifically stated that the second respondent started to work in the Mill as a casual employee and that she was engaged, whenever the work was needed. She is not doing a regular job. She was given work on piece rate basis and as soon as the job is over, she was given payment for the work done. She was engaged along with other casual labourers to finish the job. Under the above circumstances, the second respondent raised the industrial dispute as if her service has to be regularised and she had to be paid on par with permanent workers. Though the second respondent examined three witnesses, she had not filed any documents in support of her claim petition. On behalf of the petitioner Mill, one witness was examined and few documents were also marked. However, the Tribunal passed the impugned award.

(3.) The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: