Dismissed

G.Senthil Murugan v. The Commissioner of Sugars

Madras HC15 Jun 2015WP/16813/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workmen filed a writ petition seeking regularization of service against a Cooperative Sugar Mill. The single judge dismissed the petition, holding the society is not 'State' under Article 12 and directing the petitioners to approach alternative forums under the Industrial Disputes Act or Co-operative Societies Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for issue of Writ of Mandamus was dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

G.Senthil Murugan Vs The Commissioner of Sugars — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.16813 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

1.G.Senthil Murugan 2.R.Murugan 3.K.Prasath 4.T.Velmurugan 5.M.Velmurugan 6.T.Samidurai

¶7

7.K.Rajendran 8.K.Pachaappillai 9.B.Selvam 10.M.Murugan 11.C.Seenuvasan 12.P.Mayavan 13.K.Shankar 14.T.Suriyakumar 15.C.Venkatesan 16.J.Selvaraj 17.R.Prakash 18.R.Venkatesan 19.J.Manivel 20.C.Chinnadurai 21.A.Ramkumar 22.P.Madhavan 23.P.Periyappillai 24.K.Murugan 25.E.Jayavel 26.K.Senthil Murugan 27.A.Venkatesan 28.R.Rajavel 29.D.Ramamoorthy 30.A.Sathyamoorthy 31.K.Sathyamoorthy 32.A.Pachaiyappan 33.P.Parthiban 34.M.Nagaraj 35.V.Annamalai 36.P.Albert 37.A.Moorthy ... Petitioners Vs.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

The Commissioner of Sugars, Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai – 35.

¶10

The Managing Director, Kallakurichi – II Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., Kachirapalayam Post, Chinna Salem Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners in the 2^nd respondent Coop. Sugar Mills by taking consideration of their uninterrupted long service.

¶13

Heard both sides. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

2.The petitioners are the workmen employed by the second respondent Co-operative Society. According to them, they have rendered long years of service and still they are not regularised in service.

¶15

3.When this Court put a question as to how the writ petition is maintainable against the allegation made against the Sugar Mill as it is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Tamil Nadu Government has made huge investment, however, is not able to give particulars about the investment made.

¶16

4.I am of the view that, even if there is some portion of investment made by the Government that would itself will not make it as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also admits that the sugar mill is governed by the elected board by the share holders, however I am not going into that question. I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground that effective alternative remedy is available to the workmen under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Confirment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.

¶17

5.Infact, when the Government issued Government Order that the sugar mill is exempted from the purview of the aforesaid Act, this Court has quashed the said Government Order.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

6.Furthermore, the workmen/ petitioners numbering 37, themselves could raise an Industrial Dispute under Section 2k of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming permanent status and keeping workmen as temporary or daily wage workers for years together is an un-fair labour practice under clause 10 to the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the factual details and therefore, feels it better to direct the workmen to approach some other forum where the remedy is easily available. The yet another remedy these workmen can avail is the revisional remedy provided under Section 153 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

¶20

7.Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
pri
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Sugars,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 35.
2. The Managing Director,
Kallakurichi – II Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Kachirapalayam Post, Chinna Salem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate SR 29354
+ 1 cc to Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, Advocate SR 29208
+ 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 28986
kgk(co)
prk2/7
W.P.No.16813 of 2015
And
M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Senthil Murugan v. The Commissioner of Sugars

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Senthil Murugan v. The Commissioner of Sugars

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Chakkaravarthy Vs Phanindhra Reddy IAS

G.Krishnan Vs Phanindhra Reddy IAS

M.Perumal Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Jayaraman Vs the President

D.Nathiya Vs The Chariman cum Managing

C.Venkatesan Vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel)