The Joint Registrar/Managing Director, Ramanathapuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs U. Dhanasekaran and Others

S. Manikumar, J—Challenge in this appeal, by the Joint Registrar/Managing Director, Ramanathapuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ramanathapuram, is to an order, made in W.P. No. 17930 of 2014 dated 10.11.2014, by which, a learned single Judge, has dismissed the writ petition, filed by the appellant, for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order, passed by the Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981, (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act'') Ramanathapuram, vide proceedings in Roc. No. 2031/2013, dated 31.07.2014.

Material on record discloses that the 1st respondent has filed a petition under Section 6(4) of the Act, before the Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Act, (hereinafter referred to as "competent authority") stating that he has been in continuous service, for more than 480 days, for a period of 24 calendar months from 04.09.1999, till the date of application dated 27.12.2000.

Before the competent authority, 1st respondent has further contended that though he was appointed as a casual employee, on daily wage basis, as a Jewel Appraiser, in the leave vacancy, on 05.06.2007, he has been asked, to do various miscellaneous works, and has been engaged in all such works, as directed by the Management, for more than 14 years. According to him, though a representation was made, to the Management, for regularisation of his employment, and to provide permanent status, as per Section 3 of the Act, the same was not considered, and hence, he was constrained to approach the competent authority.

Appellant, while objecting to the prayer sought for, has submitted that the 1st respondent was not appointed by the Management, as a regular employee, and that he was paid only a commission, on the basis of certain terms and conditions. He has also submitted that the 1st respondent cannot be appointed, without adhering to rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and Special Bye-law of the Bank, for the reason that when rule 149 mandates calling for an eligible candidate, from the employment exchange, conferment of permanent status, cannot be made. Contention has also been made, that rule 149 contemplates adherence to cadre strength.

Adverting to the rival submissions, the competent authority having found that the 1st respondent, was in continuous employment from 04.09.1999 and that he was also engaged in other miscellaneous works, as directed by the Management, and held that the 1st respondent, who had rendered more than 480 days of continuous service, within 24 calendar months, is entitled to conferment of permanent status, and accordingly, issued orders in Roc. No. 2031/2013, dated 31.07.2014. When the said order was put to challenge in W.P.(MD) No. 17930/14, Writ Court, after considering the averments and material on record, by confirming the order, dated 31.07.2014, dismissed the writ petition.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the very same submissions, advanced before the Writ Court, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, for the following reasons.

The competent authority has framed two issues, for consideration, (i) whether the appointment of the 1st respondent, was in accordance with the procedure and (ii) whether the 1st respondent is entitled to seek conferment of permanent status, under the Act.

Before the competent authority, Mr. S. Francis, General Manager of the Bank, has appeared. During the course of proceedings, the competent authority, seemed to have posed questions to him, as regards the first respondent''s appointment on 04.09.1999 and as to whether there was any break in service.

Perusal of the order passed by the competent authority shows that Mr. S. Francis, General Manager has admitted that the 1st respondent is continuously working, from 04.09.1999 and that he has been paid salary. He has also stated that the 1st respondent had not acted against the interest of the appellant Bank. He has admitted that on 12.06.2008, the 1st respondent had given a letter, seeking regularisation. He has further added that the 1st respondent is familiar with the day-to-day affairs of the Bank. According to him, except weekly holidays, 1st respondent has been working, as casual labourer, for nearly 14 years, without any adverse remarks.

Upon perusal of the documents, the competent authority has also found that the Management of the Bank, has permitted the 1st respondent, to handle the Bank''s files and documents. Management of the Bank has not disputed the signatures of the 1st respondent, in the documents. Thus, the competent authority, has arrived at a categorical conclusion that 1st respondent has been working in the Bank continuously, for 14 years, from 04.09.1999. The competent authority has also found that after completion of a vocational course, 1st respondent, had completed one year training and thereafter, he was appointed in the Bank on 04.09.1999, as a Jewel Appraiser, and that he had been engaged, in other works of the Bank.

Order dated 31.07.2014, of the competent authority also indicates that before the said authority, the Management had stated that regularisation of the 1st respondent, to be made, within the rules. Order indicates that Management has agreed for regularisation, subject to rules. Portion of the order dated 31.07.2014, where the Management, seemed to have agreed for regularisation, subject to rules, is extracted hereunder:--

English translated version of the above extracted portion is as follows:--

"It was admitted on the side of the Management that the petitioner has been working as an employee for 14 years in an existing vacancy of your Bank. For the question that whether there is any objection for the Management to confer permanent status to the petitioner in the same post, in which he is working, and for the question that since the petitioner is working for 14 years in the Bank, whether he can be conferred with permanent status, on the basis of his educational qualification and experience, it was informed that he can be conferred with permanent status within the rules of the Bank. It was stated on the side of the Management that during the past 14 years of service, the petitioner did not cause hindrance either to the employees of the Bank or for the services of the Bank and the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory. For the claim of the petitioner that he should be given permanent status, based on the documents produced by him and on the basis of the enquiry, it was agreed on the side of the Management that the claim of the petitioner is acceptable and he can be granted permanent status within the rules of the Bank."

Thus, perusal of the order, dated 31.07.2014 of the competent authority, makes it abundantly clear that the authority, has considered the documentary evidence produced before him, and after confirming the details, with the General Manager of the appellant Bank, has categorically held that the 1st respondent, who was appointed on 04.09.1999, as a Jewel Appraiser, has been continuously working, for 14 years and thus entitled to conferment of permanent status under the Act. Having accepted the continuous employment of the 1st respondent, as a Jewel Appraiser, and in other works, it is not open to the appellant Bank, to deny regularisation or conferment of permanent status, as per the rules. When challenge to the order, dated 31.07.2014 of the competent authority, was made, Writ Court has properly adverted to the same, and found that there was no ground, to interfere with the finding of fact, recorded by the competent authority.

In the light of what is stated supra, grounds reiterated in this appeal, are not accepted. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.