AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioner is a Cooperative Society. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge an award passed by the 2nd respondent
Labour Court in I.D. No. 526 of 2004 dated 24.11.2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent
with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
The Writ Petition was admitted on 13.10.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner shall pay
the entire backwages within a period of 10 weeks or to pay the last drawn wages till the disposal of the Writ Petition. Subsequently, the said order
was modified by a further order dated 29.7.2009 to the effect that the backwages should be deposited with the Labour Court within four weeks
and on such deposit, the workman was permitted to withdraw 30% of the amount so deposited and the balance will be deposited in Nationalised
Bank for a period of three years and the workman was permitted to withdraw the accrued interest.
It is now claimed that the workman is also paid wages at the rate of Rs. 250/-. Though she asked for enhanced salary in terms of Minimum
Wages Notification, the same was declined by this Court by order dated 12.1.2009. The matter was also referred to the resolution of the dispute
by the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat by order dated 6.2.2012 returned the papers by stating that they were unable to settle the amount.
Heard the arguments of Mr. G.Sankaran, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.Harinyi, Learned Counsel for the workman/1st
respondent.
The case of the 1st respondent was that she was working as Sweeper in the office at Fairland during the year 1991. All of a sudden without any
notice, she was stopped from work from October 1997. Since her attempt to get reinstatement was not possible, she raised a dispute u/s 2-A (2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer at Chennai.
The petitioner society filed a counter statement before the officer stating that her only work was a part time work and it takes hardly 15 to 20
Minutes per day. She used to leave the premises immediately after her work was over. She has stopped from coming to work from 1.11.2007.
The Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave a failure report. On the strength of the failure report, she filed a claim
statement before the 2nd respondent Labour Court on 28.9.1998. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No. 526 of 1998 and issued
notice to the petitioner. The petitioner society filed a counter statement.
Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on her side, 4 documents were filed and marked as Ex. W.1 to Ex.
W.4. Ex. W.1 to Ex. W.4 are the entry passes given to her for entering into the Fairlands grounds, on which she worked. On the side of the
management, one Kalaikarasan was examined as M.W.1 and on their side 4 documents were filed and marked as Ex. M.1 to Ex. M.4.
The Labour Court agreed with the petitioner society that there is no post of Sweeper and gave a recommendation that the said post should be
included in the petitioner society, on the other hand found that she had worked for 3 years and she also worked in the nearby Hotel in the
Exhibition Grounds, which has no direct connection with the petitioner society. The Labour Court found that she was employees of the petitioner
society and there is employer and employee relationship and her work was to sweep the floor and to bring water.
The contention of the petitioner society was that the office premises of the society situated only in 100 Square feet and it is manned by three
employees, namely two Assistants and one Office Assistant and there is no regular post of Sweeper. These facts were not considered by the
Labour Court and on finding that she has completed three years of service, the Labour Court directed her reinstatement with backwages with the
further observation that the post of Sweeper should be included with the staff strength of the society.
However, this Court finds that on the basis of materials, the Labour Court ought not to have reinstated the workman, as the admitted position
was that apart from the society work, she also worked in the neighbouring place and that cannot be added to the liability of the petitioner society
unless there is direct connection between the petitioner society and the hotel run by the Tourism Corporation and exhibition conducted by them.
Mr. G. Sankaran, Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MGT. of Som Vihar Apt. Owners
Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Engg. and General Mazdoor, for contending that in case of personal service in a society,
it cannot be said to be a matter covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the said society cannot be an industry within the
meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a contingency do not arise.
Admittedly, the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The petitioner society has been registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The Society is formed by employees of
TDTC and rendered service for its membeRs. Definitely it can be an ""industry'' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In
this context, it is necessary to refer to a larger Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.
Rajappa and Others, .
When once this Court held that there is an employer and employee relationship and if the workman had served for more than three years,
certainly the relief of reinstatement can be granted with monetary benefits. But, in the present case, considering the nature of the work done by the
workman and other factors, if the workman is put back into service, she may even face more hurdles once having come to the court. Therefore,
considering the nature of employment being part time and holding adhoc post, as it has not been included in the staff sanction strength of the
society, in the best interest of both sides, it will be reasonable to award compensation to the 1st respondent as a full and final settlement of all
claims. In the present case, though the minimum wages were claimed, so far she has not received any minimum wages. During the pendency of the
dispute, she was also paid last drawn wages,
Considering the length of service and the last drawn wages, it will be suffice that if the petitioner society is directed to pay a sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the workman/1st respondent as full and final settlement of all her claims and in lieu of the award. Hence,
the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated. The petitioner society shall pay the amount to the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of this order. The amount already in deposit with the Labour Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the society. No costs.
The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.