AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, challenging the award of the third Respondent, labour Court, dated
05.02.2003, made in I.D. No. 50 of 1998.
The third Respondent, labour Court had passed the impugned award, dated 05.02.2003, holding that the non-employment of the Petitioner is
not justified and that the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, with backwages, continuity of service and with other attendant benefits. The main
contention of the Petitioner is that the first Respondent was employed as a pump operator , under the Petitioner Panchayat, only on a honorary
basis. No appointment order had been issued by the Petitioner Panchayat, appointing the Petitioner as a pump operator. No working hours had
been specified. The Petitioner had been paid Rs. 90/-per month only as lubricant charges for the pumpsets he was supposed to operate.
It had also been stated that there was no employer/employee relationship between the Petitioner Panchayat and the first Respondent. The first
Respondent was not a ''Work man'', as per Section 2(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the third Respondent labour Court had
passed the impugned award, dated 05.02.2003, holding that the non-employment of the first Respondent is not justified. It had also held that the
first Respondent is entitiled to reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent had stated that the first Respondent had joined in the service of the Petitioner
panchayat in the year, 1977 and he had been working as a pump operator under the Petitioner Panchayat, for more than twenty years,
continuously. He had also stated that the first Respondent was employed as a pump operator under the Panchayat on a monthly remuneration of
Rs. 90/-. It had also been stated that the first Respondent had demanded that he should be paid the minimum wages, as per the Government
Order, marked as Ex.W3 before the third Respondent labour Court. However, the Petitioner Panchayat had not paid the minimum wages, as
requested by the first Respondent.
It had also been stated that the first Respondent does not own 15 acres of land, as alleged by the Petitioner. Eventhough, certain charges had
been levelled against the first Respondent, no notice had been issued to him and no enquiry had been conducted with regard to the said charges. It
had also been stated that no retreachment compensation had been paid by the Petitioner Panchayat.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the first Respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view
that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned award of the labour Court, dated 05.02.2003, made in
I.D. No. 50 of 1998.
It is noted that the third Respondent labour Court had passed the award on the basis of the oral evidence of the first Respondent and on the
basis of the records marked on his behalf, as exhibits W1 to W6. From Ex.W.3, the third Respondent labour Court had noted that the contention
of the Petitioner panchayat that the first Respondent had never worked as a pump operator was erroneous.
It had also been noted, from Ex.W1, that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed an order fixing the minimum wages of pump operators in
the state of Tamil Nadu. It had been found that the first Respondent had been issued an identity card, by the Petitioner panchayat, to show that he
was working as a pump operator. On the other hand, the Petitioner Panchayat had not been in a position to show that a notice had been issued to
the first Respondent, based on the charges levelled against him. It is also clear that no enquiry had been conducted on the allegation levelled against
the first Respondent. As such the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the Petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the first Respondent, if so
advised, based on the charges levelled against him, as per the relevant provisions of law.