G. Savithri vs The Industrial Tribunal of Tamil Nadu, The Director, National Silk Worm Seed Project, Central Silk Board and The Senior Research Officer, Silk Worm Seed Production Centre

S. Rajeswaran, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated 29.7.1991 from the Industrial Tribunal of Tamil Nadu, Madras in I.D.No.

22 of 1988, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back-wages and continuity of service and

other attendant benefits.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 29.7.91 made in Industrial Dispute No. 22/98 by which the

Industrial Tribunal held that the non-employment of the writ petitioner who is a causal worker due to non-availability of the work is justified.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was employed by 2nd respondent-board to work as a field worker in their Seri-cultural Research

Centre, Coimbatore from 14.8.75 and she was working there continuously for 7 years till 38.7.72. She was transferred to 3rd respondent''s Silk

Worm Seed Production Centre, Coimbatore, which is an another unit of 2nd respondent, and she continued to work from 1.8.82 as a grainage

worker till 15.9.84. on 15.9.84, she was informed that her services were not required and she need not come for work from 16.9.84. She raised a

dispute before the Regional labour Commissioner, Bangalore, then with the Regional labour Commissioner, Madras on 17.8.85. Since the

conciliation failed and failure report was sent to the Central Government and an order of reference dated 24.3.88 was made to the Industrial

Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 29.7.91 held that the non-employment of the writ petitioner due to the nonavailability of the

work is justified and that respondents 2 and 3 should have paid one month pay and compensation when refusing employment from 16.9.84 by

enforcing Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal further observed that being a casual worker, it was not possible to reinstate her

into service. Aggrieved by the said order dt.29.7.91 the above writ petition has been filed by the above writ petitioner on 9.7.97.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. I have also perused, the documents filed and the

judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

A perusal of the award under challenge reveals that the writ petitioner was engaged only as a casual labourer. The tribunal came to such a

conclusion on the basis of Exs.W9 and W10. Therefore the tribunal accepted the stand of respondents 2 and 3 that for want of available work, the

writ petitioner was not offered any work from 16.9.84. The tribunal considering the fact that Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act is violated

and considering the fact that she was only a casual worker, directed respondents 2 and 3 to pay one month''s pay and retrenchment compensation

as on 16.9.84 with interest at 9% till the date of payment.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, a 5 judges Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that merely

because of a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for period beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to

be observed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance if the original appointment was not made by

following the due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.

In the light of the above order passed by the tribunal dated 29.7.91, and the above said judgment of the Supreme Court, it is not possible for

this Court to direct respondents 2 and 3 to reinstate the writ petitioner in service with full back-wages, continuity of service and other attendant

benefits.

Further the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as the same has been filed on 9.7.97 challenging the order of the

tribunal dated 29.7.91. Even though some reasons have been given to explain the delay of nearly 6 years in filing the writ petition, I am not satisfied

with the explanation given by the writ petitioner without any substance or without producing legally acceptable and uncontroverted evidence.

Hence I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.