IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.1.2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.9291 of 2003
G.Charles Balasundaram .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Deputy General Manager,
Pondicherry Agro Service and
Industries Corporation Ltd.,
Agro House, Thattachavady,
Pondicherry 605 009.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Karaikal ..Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar
For respondents : Mr.T.P.Manoharan for R1
O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a
writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
relating to the Award, dated 13.1.2003, in I.D.No.6 of 2001,
on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and
consequently to direct the first respondent to re-employ the
petitioner with all consequential benefits.
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the
petitioner, are as follows:
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Store
Keeper in the year, 1989. He was paid a sum of Rs.39/- per
day being a casual employee. While so, after March 1993, the
first respondent had declined to engage the petitioner in
service. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the
concerned Labour Officer. While the matter was pending, the
Managing Director of the first respondent Corporation had
informed the petitioner that his case was considered by the
Board, for absorption, and that he should withdraw the
petition pending before the Labour Officer. Accordingly, the
petitioner did not pursue the petition before the Labour
Officer. Since no steps had been taken to absorb the
petitioner in service, he had submitted an application to
the respondent Corporation for settling the employees’
Provident Fund dues. Since he was without employment and for
the reason that he had to take care of his family, he had
gone abroad, for about 13 months, in search of a job. He had
gone away from the month of September, 1996 till the month
of October, 1997.
3. The petitioner had initiated conciliation
proceedings and since it had failed, the matter was referred
to the Labour Court, in I.D.No.6 of 2001. The labour Court
has dismissed the petition, without proper consideration of
the materials on record. Therefore, the petitioner had filed
the present writ petition challenging the award passed by
the labour Court.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
first respondent it has been stated that the petitioner had
suppressed the material facts and documents relating to the
case and had belatedly raised the Industrial Dispute making
vexatious and untenable claims.
5.It has been stated that the first respondent
Corporation is a Government of Pondicherry undertaking and a
Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has
been established mainly for the purpose of the development
of Agriculture and other agro relevant activities in the
Union Territory of Pondicherry. Permanent employees had been
engaged to carry out the regular work of the first
respondent Corporation. However, to attend to the occasional
and temporary miscellaneous work, daily rated employees had
been engaged, from time to time. With regard to such
occasional and temporary miscellaneous work, the petitioner
had been engaged in the Karaikal branch of the corporation,
from 27.5.1991, depending upon the requirement, paying him
the wages at the rate of Rs.39/- per day. The petitioner was
neither a regular employee nor a temporary employee of the
Corporation and therefore, his name had not been included in
the rolls of the regular employees of the Corporation.
During the month of September-November 1992, the petitioner
had got an employment in Saudi Arabia and therefore, he had
left India. Hence, the petitioner had not turned up for
work from 4.11.1992. Since the petitioner had voluntarily
left seeking employment in Saudi Arabia, he had claimed the
monetary benefits, payable under the employees’ provident
fund scheme, 1952, and the employees’ Family Pension Scheme,
1971, and he had also received the same. He has also
prepared and submitted the Form-19, under the Employees’
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, wherein, he had stated the date
of leaving the services of the corporation, as 10.11.1992.
Even in the other Forms, which he had submitted the same
date has been given. It only goes to show that he had
voluntarily left from 10.11.1992 and had not presented
himself for employment thereafter. Suppressing all the facts
as stated above, the petitioner had raised an Industrial
Disputes, in I.D.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the second
respondent, stating that he was removed from service from
the year, 1993, and that he had been appointed as an
Assistant Store Keeper in the respondent Corporation from
the month of February, 1989, and he was being paid a salary
of Rs.3,000/- per month.
6.However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner had submitted that the model standing orders
would be applicable to him and accordingly, even if it was
taken, as stated by the respondent Corporation, that he had
abandoned his service or that he had stopped from work, an
enquiry should have been conducted, since he was coming
under the category of workman.
7.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the first respondent Corporation had submitted
that the petitioner was only a daily rated employee, being
paid a sum of Rs.39/- per day, and only on that basis the
petitioner had turned up for work to carry out the temporary
miscellaneous work. Further, the petitioner had made a
representation for the first time, on 13.10.1999, with
regard to his alleged non-employment from the year, 1993. No
worthwhile explanation had been given for such a long delay
in raising the issue of alleged non-employment. Inspite of
the petitioner being asked to file his passport, he had
refused to do so. Since such production of the passport
would show that he had not been present in India during the
relevant period. Therefore, adverse inference could be
gathered against the claims made by the petitioner.
8.On analysing the rival contentions advanced on behalf
of the petitioner as well as for the first respondent and on
a perusal of the documents available, it is clear that the
labour Court had taken into consideration all the relevant
factors, before it had passed the final Award, dated
13.1.2003, in I.D.No.6 of 2001. Nothing has been shown on
behalf of the petitioner to support his contentions to
persuade this Court to conclude that the award was wrongly
made.
9.From the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is not in a position to find any flaw in the findings
of the labour Court in its Award, dated 13.1.2003. Further,
this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, cannot be persuaded to reappraise
the evidence, based on which the labour Court had come to
its conclusion, as held by a decision of the Supreme Court
in Hari Shankar Sharma and Others Vs. Artificial Limbs
Manufacturing Corpn., and others ((2002) 1 SCC 337).
In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
To
1. The Deputy General Manager,
Pondicherry Agro Service and
Industries Corporation Ltd.,
Agro House, Thattachavady,
Pondicherry 605 009
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Karaikal