The Commissioner, Tiruvallur Municipality vs The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, etc. and Others

A.K. Rajan, J.—These Writ Petitions have been filed against the common award passed by the I Additional Labour Court setting aside the

dismissal and reinstating the workers who are the second Respondent in all the writ petitions. The second Respondent in all the writ petitions were

employees of the Petitioner, Tiruvallur Municipality. Originally they were employed as gang muzdoors from 01.12.1988 to 25.03.1992. On

25.03.1992, all of them were terminated from service on the grounds that they were only employed on daily wages; they were temporary

employees and they were performing the work based on the estimated funds and that once the estimated funds are exhausted there was no work

available for them and therefore, they had to be terminated. The case of the writ Petitioner/Municipality is that the workers were only temporary

employees working on daily wages for a specific purpose of a particular project and they knew objectively well even at the time of the

appointment that they would lose their work at the time when the project would be over and therefore, it is not as if they were made as permanent

employees and the promise is not kept.

When the second Respondent in all the writ petitions/workers approached the learned Labour Court, the Labour Court has held that even

assuming that all these persons were not appointed on temporary basis, since they were working from December, 1988 to March 1992,

admittedly they have been working more than 240 days in a year and therefore, Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply and in

view of the procedure laid down u/s 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination which is in the nature of retrenchment is illegal and

therefore, the Labour Court has set aside the termination and order reinstatement of the workers. Against that award, these writ petitions have

been filed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that there are no permanent posts in which the workers can be fixed and they were working

temporarily and therefore, they cannot be made permanent and hence, the order of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.

The learned Counsel for the second Respondent in all these writ petitions submitted that as per Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial

Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 Act No. 46 of 1981), (hereinafter referred to as ""Act No. 46 of

1981""), this Act applies to every industrial establishment, not seasonal in character, in which not less than 50 workers were employed on any day

of the proceeding 12 months. According to Section 3(1) of the Act No. 46 of 1981, by operation of this Act, permanent status shall be conferred

on any workmen who is continuing in service for a period of 480 days in a period of two years continuously. The Labour Court has rightly come to

the conclusion and therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

On the perusal of the award of the Labour Court, it is clear that these workers were admittedly working on daily wages from 01.12.1988 to

25.03.1992 continuously. Therefore, there is no doubt that they were working in this municipality for more than 480 days within a period of two

years. Therefore, the provision of the Act No. 46 of 1981 is fulfilled with and therefore, they are entitled to the status of permanent workers in the

municipality. Undoubtedly, the municipality also is ""an industry"" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, Trivellore

Municipality is an industrial establishment. By combined reading of the Industrial Disputes Act and Act No. 46 of 1981 these workers were

entitled to get permanent status. The Labour Court has rightly given that status. There is no illegality in the order of award passed by the Labour

Court. Hence, all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.