The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order calling the petitioner for fresh interview instead of appointment based on previous directions. Relying on a prior judgment, the Court held the claim unsustainable due to false claims of service length and lack of proper retrenchment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.13228 of 2007 and
W.M.P.No.2 of 2007
P. Balasubramanian ...Petitioner Vs 1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kovai) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Erode Zone, Chennimalai Road, Erode.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed praying to issue writs, orders or directions and in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent, quash the order of the 2nd respondent bearing
Pa.Na.4103/B1/Pa.P1/Tha.A.Po./Ko/EM/07 dated 29.03.2007, in so far as calling for the petitioner for interview for the post of conductor as a fresh candidate instead of calling the petitioner for appointment in accordance with the order passed in W.A. No.2985 of 2003 etc. dated 08.12.2005, order dated 09.12.2005 in W.P. No.37063 of 2005, order dated 14.09.2006 in W.P. No.33357 of 2006 and in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006 and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as conductor on the basis of the certificate verification and in accordance with the order passed in W.A. No.2985 of 2003 etc., dated 08.12.2005, order dated 09.12.2005 in WP 37063 of 2005 order dated 14.09.2006 in WP No.33357 of 2006 and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) department dated 13.07.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Parthasarathy
(For M/s. Balan Haridas) For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.A. Sundaravadanan (Standing Counsel for Transport Corporation)
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus relating to the order in Pa.Na.4103/B1/Pa.P1/Tha.A.Po./Ko/EM/07 dated 29.03.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as conductor on the basis of the certificate verification, Judgments of this Court and G.O. Ms. No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006.
" The petitioners in the above writ petitions claim that they are employed for a number of days in the Transport Corporation and they are eligible for re-employment under Section 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act. They also rely upon G.O. Ms. No.41 Transport Department, dated 13.07.2006 with reference to their absorption. The maintainability and their right to enforce the said Government Order and also the nature of right claimed under the Industrial Disputes Act have been considered by this Court in an elaborate Judgment in W.P. Nos.11455 to 11457 of 2007 dated 24.04.2007. In that Judgment, paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 read as follows:
(i) Right of re-employment under Section 25H of the I.D. Act will have to be determined only if an
employee's retrenchment comes within the definition of the term ''retrenchment'' found in Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act and that it is not hit by the exception found in sub-section (bb) introduced by Central Act 49 of 1984 w.e.f.18.08.1984.
(ii) Further, the claims of workmen will have to be determined in terms of paragraph 139(3) (b) of the order passed by the learned Judge in the batch of cases, disposed on 14.12.2006, wherein the learned Judge clearly states that only persons who are qualified under Section 25F of the I.D. Act, are eligible for re-employment but it will not apply to persons, who have not actually worked under the Corporation but made a bogus claim.
(iii) The workmen, who have approached this Court including the petitioners though made a false claim about the length of their service, and by the impugned order, the respondent Corporation had taken a definite stand that they had worked less than 20 days and 11 days that too, they had worked in vacancies due to unforeseen circumstances like strike, festivals and large scale absentism, are not eligible for any preferential treatment.
section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act.
In view of the same, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.s are dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
lbm
To:
1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Kovai) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Erode Zone, Chennimalai Road, Erode.
2. General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Kovai) Limited,
Erode Zone, Chennimalai Road,
Erode – 638 .
+1CC to Mr.A. Sundaravadanan, Advocate, SR39110
W.P.No.13228 of 2007 and W.M.P.No.2 of 2007 CO(SPD) BDL/08/01/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment as conductor based on preferential right under Section 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act given false claims of tenure.
Whether the stand taken by the Corporation regarding the petitioner's actual length of service affects eligibility for re-employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Balasubramanian
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kovai) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director
General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kovai) Limited
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
