High Court comes to the rescue of retrenched lorry cleaner

Orders his reinstatement in service after 12-year legal battle

The Madras High Court Bench here has come to the rescue of a lorry cleaner who was retrenched from service by Kovilpatti Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society (KAPCM) in Tirunelveli district after it sold the vehicle in 2003.

Dismissing a writ appeal filed by the management of the society, a Division Bench of Justices A. Selvam and T. Mathivanan quashed the retrenchment order and directed the appellant to reinstate the cleaner, G. Balasubramanian, in service.

The judges said according to the retrenched employee, he had been serving the KAPCM since 1985.

After 10 years of service as truck cleaner, he was shifted to work as a watchman since both the posts were of the same cadre and scale of pay.

Suddenly, on September 24, 2003, the management issued orders retrenching him and a lorry driver on payment of wages for three months.

The driver accepted the order but Mr. Balasubramanian approached the Labour Officer concerned against the order.

The matter was referred to the Tirunelveli Deputy Commissioner of Labour who quashed the retrenchment order on October 30, 2006 on the ground of non-adherence to procedures prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act and ordered his reinstatement.

In 2007, the KAPCM filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner’s order on the ground that it could not employ a cleaner in the absence of the lorry. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ on November 13, 2009 and hence the present appeal.

Writing the judgement for the Bench, Mr. Justice Mathivanan said the post of lorry cleaner in the KAPCM was within its cadre strength and Mr. Balasubramanian had been appointed to the post in 1985 only after being recommended by the District Employment Exchange.

Since it was a regular post, the society should have passed a resolution before abolishing it and also obtained prior permission from the State government. “It is significant to note here that it is admitted by the management that the retrenchment compensation for the second respondent for his 18 years of service was not paid to him… Therefore, the retrenchment is illegal and is liable to be quashed,” the judges added.