AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Rajeswaran, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records in file Rc.No.AA/19146/92 in the office of the first respondent
and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order No. Rc.No.AA/19146/92 dated 31st May 1995 issued by the first respondent.
This writ petition has been filed by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Thanjavur for the aforesaid relief against the award of the
1st respondent allowing the claim of the respondents 2 to 156 for conferment of permanent status.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support
of the writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the present writ petition, W.P.No.14640/1996 was filed by the petitioner
management challenging the identical award dated 25.3.1995 of the 1st respondent granting similar relief and the same was allowed by this Court
on 8.3.2004, following the decision of this Court. Therefore the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar order could be passed in
this writ petition also. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 156 has also agreed that the present writ petition is identical to the writ petition
No.14640/96 and the order passed in that writ petition could be passed in this writ petition also.
In W.P.No.14640/96, filed by the very same petitioner against a similar award upholding the claim of 129 workmen for conferment of
permanent status, this Court held as follows:
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question regarding regularisation of such seasonal employees are covered by two
Section 12(3) settlements, one of the year 1991 and the other of the year 1997. The first respondent had declined to consider the terms of the
1991 settlement on the ground that the period for which the settlement had to be enforced, had expired and therefore that cannot be taken note of.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that until the other settlement takes its place, the terms of the previous settlement shall apply. A
copy of the 1997 settlement has been produced and Clause 5 deals with the demand for giving preference to the qualified seasonal employees in
the direct purchase centres while filling the regular vacancies. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this term in the settlement is
adhered and that about 34 of the respondent workmen have been regularised and brought under time scale of pay and 64 have been recorded as
seasonal workmen.
The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.N.C.S.C. Workers'' Union v. T.N.C.S.C. Ltd. and Ors. 1998 I LLJ 728 was brought to
my notice. That case was also between the petitioner Corporation and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union. In that case
also, the question was regarding the regularisation of seasonal employees on the ground that the petitioners had completed 480 days of service.
The Division Bench held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981
will not apply to the petitioner Corporation since direct purchase centres where employees are working are establishments of seasonal character
depending on procurement season, and that the provisions of Act do not apply to seasonal employees.
The Division Bench also held that such seasonal employees are appointed on adhoc basis and not against sanctioned vacancy and therefore they
are not ipso facto entitled to regularisation. In para 20 A, the Division Bench held that as and when vacancy arises, the Corporation is obliged to
consider the claim of the qualified seasonal employees pursuant to the settlement reached between them and the workmen u/s 12(3) of the Act.
The copy of the 1997 settlement also shows that this particular union had been a signatory to the settlement since the Signatory No.4 is Thiru
S.Chandrakumar, General Secretary who has represented the workers before the first respondent.
In view of the Division Bench judgment and recording the statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Corporation
would abide by the terms of the settlement and regularise the services of the workmen as and when vacancy arises in terms of the settlement, the
impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
In view of the above judgment of this Court, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.
It is also brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the respondents that all the respondents have been considered and their services have
already been regularised in a phased manner and this submission is also recorded.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. W.M.P.Nos.20048 and 20049 of 1996 are closed.