Disposed

P.Lakshmanan v. the Union of India

Madras HC13 Nov 2018WP/12694/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single justice bench disposed of four writ petitions involving casual labourers seeking regularisation. Relying on a previous Division Bench order approved by the Supreme Court, the court directed the Department to frame a scheme covering all similarly placed employees without discrimination based on delay, refusing to examine subsequent non-employment issues.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Department to frame a regularisation scheme including all similarly placed labourers in compliance with the Division Bench order approved by the Apex Court.

P.Lakshmanan Vs the Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.Nos.12694, 28616 and 29010 of 2013 and 12759 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.13610 of 2017 in W.P.No.12694 of 2013

¶5

W.P.No.12694 of 2013 P.Lakshmanan .. Petitioner -vs1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I, 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II, MHU Complex, 473, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. 5.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III, 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 6.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 6^th respondent in its order dated 25.11.2011 made in OA 1501 of 2011 and order dated 30.01.2012 in

¶7

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

¶8

R.A.No.5 of 2012, quash the same and consequently, direct respondents 1 to 3 to confer temporary status to the petitioner with all attendant benefits flowing therefrom.

¶9

W.P.No.28616 of 2013

¶10

1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

¶11

2.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶12

3.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I, Commissionerate 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶13

4.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III, Commissionerate Annex Building 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division, Vellore District. 6.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Vellore Division, Vellore District. .. Petitioners -vs1.D.Kumar 2.K.Ramesh 3.F.Lawrence Daney 4.S.Venkatesan

¶14

5.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Addl. City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in O.A.No.983 of 2012 dated 28.2.2013 on the file of the 5^th respondent herein and quash the same.

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.29010 of 2013

¶18

1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I, Commissionerate 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III, Commissionerate Annex Building 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division, Vellore District. .. Petitioners

¶19

-vs1.M.Bharathi 2.V.Uma 3.N.Ganeshmoorthy 4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Addl. City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents

¶20

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in O.A.No.988 of 2012 dated 28.2.2013 on the file of the 4^th respondent herein and quash the same.

¶21

W.P.No.12759 of 2017 1.Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

¶22

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

¶23

2.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, 26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶24

3.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, No.6/7, A.T.D.Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶25

4.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulks Compound, Anaimedu, Salem-636 001. .. Petitioners -vs1.M.Munipandi 2.A.Muthukumaran 3.K.Munisamy 4.S.Vijayakumar 5.The Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Buildings, 2^nd Floor, Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the fifth respondent in O.A.No.310/00847/2015 dated 14.03.2017 and quash the same.

¶26

For Petitioner in WP.12694/2013 : Mr.Karthik in WPs.28616 & 29010/2013 : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar in WP.12759/2017 : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For Respondents in WP.12694/2013 : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar for RR 1 to 5 : R-6 Tribunal in WP.28616/2013 : M/s.Lita Srinivasan for M/s.Corner Stone Ass. For RR 1 to 4 : R-5 Tribunal in WP.29010/2013 : M/s.Lita Srinivasan for M/s.Corner Stone Ass. For RR 1 to 3 : R-4 Tribunal

¶27

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

¶28

in WP.12759/2017 : Mr.V.Parthiban for RR 1 to 4 : R-5 Tribunal

¶29

¶30

COMMON ORDER

¶31

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶32

All these writ petitions involve the very same issue which has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.16733 of 2009, etc. (batch) vide order dated 19.07.2011.

¶33

2.The temporary casual labourers sought for regularisation of their services and aggrieved over the dismissal of their applications before the Tribunal, the present writ petitions have been filed, inter alia, contending that they being placed on the same footing as that of the successful writ petitioners/respondents-casual labouorers before the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.16733 of 2009, etc. (batch) vide order dated 19.07.2011, the same benefit will have to be extended, more so, when the aforesaid decision has been approved by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9988-9991 of 2013 vide order dated 19.04.2018.

¶34

3.On an earlier occasion, similarly placed persons like the present casual labourers, approached the Tribunal and got orders in their favour for regularisation. It was put to challenge in a batch of writ petitions filed by the Department and the unsuccessful casual labourers in W.P.Nos.16733 of 2009, etc. (batch), which were ended up in favour of labourers vide common order dated 19.07.2011. The relevant paragraphs 116 and 117 of the said common order dated 19.07.2011 are as follows:

¶35

“116.In the light of the above and taking note of

¶36

the fact that the 1^st respondent in W.P.No.16733 of 2009, Respondents in WP.No.16899 of 2009, Writ Petitioners in WP.No.11492 of 2006 7 18969 of 2006/Applicants had put in fairly long spell of service, we have no hesitation to hold that denying them the temporary status and the consequent regularisation is not a prudent and fair practice and that too when the Department of Personnel and Training in Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 framed one time regularisation scheme). Otherwise, it would amount to vilating the tenor and spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, besides discrimination, arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

¶37

117.Viewed in that perspective and also taking note of the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present cases on hand which float on the surface, in the interest of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and on humane considerations, we

¶38

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

¶39

direct the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.16733 of 2009 & 16889 of 2009 and the Respondents in W.P.Nos.11492 of 2006 & 18969/2006 (Department) to frame a similar Scheme like that of Department of Personnel and Training Official Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 (one time regularisation scheme framed already) to provide an opportunity of regular entry to the 1^st respondent in WP.No.16733 of 2009, Respondents in W.P.No.16899 of 2009, Writ Petitioners in WP.Nos.11492 of 2006 & 18969 of 2006/ Applicants subject to eligibility, possessing qualification, if any and after relaxing the age bar and consider their case for regularisation, keeping in mind the Article 41 and IV of the directives of Constitution of India and grant them security of tenure in accordance with law and in the manner known to law, within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶40

4.A challenge was made to the aforesaid order before the Apex Court by the Department in Civil Appeal Nos.9988-9991 of 2013. The Civil Appeals were dismissed by the order dated 19.04.2018, which is extracted below:

¶41

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

In the facts of these cases, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.

¶43

We expect the appellants to implement the order of the High Court within three months. Pending applications are disposed of.”

¶44

5.Thus, the issue has been given a quietus. It appears, no scheme has been framed as of now, notwithstanding the time limit prescribed by the Apex Court. Contempt petitions were filed in Contempt Petition Nos.1876 to 1879 of 2018, which were closed giving liberty to the contempt petitioners/labourers to approach the High Court, if deemed appropriate.

¶45

6.On a query, the learned counsel appearing for the Department would submit that the scheme will have to be restricted to the parties before the Division Bench referred supra. The relief will have to be denied for the others on the ground of delay and laches. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397, has not been taken note of and the services of the labourers have been disengaged pursuant to a decision made to outsource the same through the Contractors from the year 2006 onwards. Therefore, the prayer of the present casual labourers will have to be denied.

¶46

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

¶47

7.The learned counsel appearing for the respective labourers by way of reply would submit that all the labourers are working as on today with the Department and therefore, the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Department cannot be accepted.

¶48

8.The issue has become final and therefore, no longer res integra. The present workers are similarly placed like that of the workers before the Division Bench referred supra. Since no scheme has yet been finalised, the same will have to be formulated by including the present labourers as well.

¶49

9.The judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.16733 of 2009, etc. (batch) referred supra has been confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the Civil Appeals filed by the Department. The Apex Court, while dismissing the Civil Appeals, had specifically stated that the judgment of the Division Bench will have to be complied with within a specified time. The issues sought to be raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Department were very much available before the Apex Court. These issues are with respect to facts and law. Therefore, any attempt and any exercise by this Court would amount to reviewing the order of the Apex Court, which is not permissible and the same is against the judicial discipline. In a multi-Court system, a decision of the Higher Court will have to be given due respect. It is also not in dispute that the mode of appointment of the labourers and the others in the earlier Division Bench referred supra are one and the same. We do not like to dwell much on the facts of the case as it is for the Department to frame a scheme in due compliance with the direction of the Division Bench. Therefore, the other issues such as subsequent non-employment, policy decision made, etc., are not gone into by this Court and we leave it to the wisdom of the Department to take note of these factors while implementing the order of the Division Bench referred supra. When once a scheme is directed to be framed, between similarly placed employees, there cannot be any discrimination on the ground that it can be made applicable to only those who approached the Court as against others who have approached belatedly. We are also not inclined to go into the issue as to whether the labourers are actually employed by the Department or working through the Contractors. This is also not the subject matter of the writ petitions.

¶50

10.Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the Department to frame a scheme in the light of the order of the Division Bench referred supra and as approved by the Apex Court, by taking into consideration of all the

¶51

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

¶52

employees who are similarly placed like the employees before the Division Bench in W.P.No.16733 of 2009, etc. (batch). No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.13610 of 2017 is closed.

¶53

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶54

//True Copy//

¶55

Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and Customs,
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
26/1, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
3.The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-I,Commissionerate 26/1, M.G.Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
4.The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai II, MHU Complex, 473,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 034.
5.The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai III, Commissionerate, Annex Building 26/1, M.G.Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
6.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, Chennai.
7.The Assistant Commissioner of Central
Excise, Ranipet Division, Vellore District.
8.The Assistant Commissioner of Central
Excise, Vellore Division, Vellore District.

¶56

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

¶57

9.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, No.6/7, A.T.D.Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶58

10.The Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Foulks Compound, Anaimedu, Salem-636 001.

¶59

+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil kumar, Advocate sr.no.78094 +1cc to Karthik Mukundan, Advocate sr.no.77547 +2cc to M/s.Kingsly Solomon J, Advocate sr.no.77459, 77460(18/12/2018)

¶60

+1cc to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate sr.no.77734(24/12/2018) +2cc to Mr.V.Parthiban, Advocate sr.no.77262(24/12/2018)

¶61

W.P.Nos.12694, 28616 and 29010
of 2013 and 12759 of 2017
rsv(co)
nr 30/11/2018

¶62

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

P.Lakshmanan v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Lakshmanan v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Venkatachalam Vs the Chairman

P.Subbarayalu Vs the Director of Local Fund

V.Vijayakumar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Natarajan, Vs the Director General

The Union of India Vs Mr.D.Kumar

The Union of India, Vs Mrs.M.Bharathi