BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ASSISSTANT LABOUR

COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Original Application No. of 2013.

Workman:-

Joy P.,
S/o Palayyan,
Aged 32,
Joy Bhavan,
Alantharakonam,
Perukavu
Thiruvananthapuram-695573

Vs.

Employer/Respondents:-

1. Union of India
Represented by
Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.

2. Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
JLN Stadium Complex,
East Gate,
New Delhi-110003.

3 Principal,
Sports Authority of India,
Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education,
Thiruvananthapuram.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

1. Particulars of the order against which the application is made:-

The Application is made against ousting from employment dated 01-

01-2013 by the 3rd respondent/employer.

2. Jurisdiction:-
The workman declares that the subject matter of the Application against
which he wants redressal are within the jurisdiction of this Honourable
Asst. Labour Commissioner.

3. Limitation:-
The Applicant further declares that the Application is made within the
limitation period.
4. FACTS OF THE CASE:-
(1) I was a class IV employee having the designation safai/sweeper of
the 3rd respondent/employer institution. I had been appointed by the 3 rd
respondent at the rate of Rs.91/- per day as emoluments. I was appointed on
01/11/2003 and the same continued till 31/12/2012. As such I am having
nine years of continious service with the 2nd and 3rd respondent.

(2) I have complied all the orders of the employer and till this date no
complaint or disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the
applicant. I was regular and prompt in his duties and a close scrutiny of
attendance register will reveal the level of my commitment. I being a daily
wages employee was quite often exploited by the 3 rd respondent for his
personal needs especially as a domestic help in his house. Since the 3 rd
respondent/employer threatened me that in case of lodging a complaint I
will be ousted from the daily wages arrangement and as such I had never
ever complained against this exploitation.

(3) I got an average of 29 working days and as such initially I got

Rs.2639/- as monthly emoluments. Later the emolument became Rs.6820/-
during 2006 and was increased constantly till December, 2012. While so on
02/11/2012 the 3rd employer/respondent directed me for cleaning the toilet
of his house. For the 1st time I questioned the exploitation of the 3 rd
respondent as his domestic help. As a result the 3 rd respondent threatened
me that I will be ousted from the job within no time. This is the immediate
cause for ousting me from the employment with the employer/respondents.
Aggrieved by the biased action of the 3 rd employer/respondent, I preferred a
representation to the 3rd employer/respondent for which so far no action has
been taken.

(4) I was ousted from the employment even without a notice. So far no
reasons have been stated for ousting me from the employment. Not even a
termination letter has been given from the part of employers/respondents.
As per the note for my appointment it was mentioned that the arrangement
of daily wages employment was till the date of getting a permanent staff for
cleaning. To my knowledge so far a permanent employee has not been
appointed to the post wherein I was employed. The act of dismissal from
the part of employers/respondents is biased, against the principles of natural
justice and is nothing but a retaliatory one.

(5) I am seriously aggrieved by the ousting of the 3 rd

employer/respondent. Hence I beg to prefer this Application.

5. Grounds for Reliefs and Legal Provisions:-

(A) I am seriously aggrieved by the ousting by the

employer/respondent that too without notice and dismissal order. The
intention of the ousting is to somehow prevent my opportunity in becoming
a permanent employee.

(B) The employers/respondents ignored the prevailing norms of

dismissing a daily wages employee. I am eligible to continue in the present
 place of posting until the post is filled by the appointment of a permanent
employee.

(C) The ousting is nothing but a retaliatory measure from the part of
employers/respondents and hence is biased, arbitrary and unilateral.

(D) I may be permitted to urge such other grounds as this Hon’ble Asst.
Labour Commissioner may be pleased to allow at the time of hearing of this
application.

. Reliefs sought for:-

i. Issue an order directing the employers/respondents to permit
the workman to continue in service till the post is filled by
permanent employee.
ii. Issue an order or direction to the employers/respondents to
issue emoluments for the period for which the applicant was
ousted from the employment.
and
iii. Issue such other appropriate direction or order as this Hon’ble
Tribunal may be pleased to issue in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

Verification

I, Joy P., S/o Palayyan, Aged 32, Joy Bhavan, Alantharakonam,

perukavu, Thiruvananthapuram-695573, do hereby verify that the
contents of Paragraphs 1 to 5 are true to the best of my information,
knowledge and belief and that I have not suppressed any material facts.

Dated this the 21ST day of November, 2013.

Workman
BEFORE THE HON’BLE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER ( CENTRAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

08(70) 2013/ALC/TVM

Joy P. : Workman

V.

Director General, SAI & another : Employer

AUTHORISATION LETTER

I, Joy P., S/o Palayyan, aged 32, ‘Joy Bhavan’, Alantharakonam, Perukavu, Thiruvananthapuram-
695573 do hereby authorize, Unniraja T.I., Advocate, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
to represent on behalf of me in the abovesaid case.

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2014.

Joy P.

Workman