AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The case of the Petitioner is that Tuticorin Stevedores'' Association, was taken over by the Tuticorin Port Trust.
On formation of Tuticorin Port Trust, a statutory settlement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, stipulating, to take over the services of the employees, working with the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner was, therefore, under obligation to give employment to all the employees, after screening test.
Under the statutory settlement, the 2nd Respondent gave a list of 1926 employees, who were given employment, after screening test, conducted by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 could not be subject to screening test, as he was not on the roll of the Respondent No. 2, being absent from duty, on account of registration of a criminal case against him.
The Respondent No. 3, on acquittal, approached the Respondent No. 2, for being inducted into service. On the refusal, the 3rd Respondent raised an industrial dispute.
In view of the fact that the rights and liabilities of the Respondent No. 2, were taken over by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was impleaded as a party before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court, in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 3 was proved to be employed by Respondent No. 2, directed that the Respondent No. 3 be also subject to screening test, and if found eligible be given fresh appointment.
The award of the learned Labour Court, is challenged, by contending that under the statutory settlement, only employees, whose name were supplied had a right of employment after the screening test, but Respondent No. 3 had no legal right to claim employment with the Petitioner, for want of inclusion of the name, in the list, supplied by the 2nd Respondent, being not on rolls on the date of settlement.
It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after screening test, the employees had also undergone training and were given employment, on successful completion of training.
It is also contented by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that 1926 employees, whose name were included in the list, were required to report for the screening test within the specified time, and those employees, who failed to appear in the screening test, were not given employment. The learned Labour Court, therefore, could not direct the screening test of Respondent No. 3, at this stage.
On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Once, the Respondent No. 3 was able to prove that he was employed in the Respondent No. 2, merely because, his name did not appear in the list, could not be a ground to deny the screening test.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that time was fixed for screening test can also not advance the case of the 3rd Respondent. As admittedly, the 3rd Respondent not being in the list, could not appear for screening test, within the time stipulated under the agreement.
It is on the appreciation of the evidence and the facts pleaded, that the learned Labour Court, recorded a finding of fact that the Respondent No. 3 was entitled to screening for the purposes of appointment, as he could have reported for screening test, only after acquittal by the criminal court.
Even though, no fault can be found with the award passed by the learned Labour Court, still the 3rd Respondent cannot be granted any relief, at this stage, as he has already crossed the age of superannuation. The order passed by the learned Labour Court, is only to subject the 3rd Respondent to screening test and if found eligible to appoint him.
The Respondent No. 3, admittedly is not eligible for appointment as on date.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned Award of the learned Labour Court is set aside being in-executable as holding of the screening test would only be a formality which cannot result in appointment of Respondent No. 3. No costs.