Dismissed

V.Venkatesan, v. the Registrar of Cooperative

Madras HC6 Jul 2020WP/8689/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order discontinuing petitioners' services after they were retrenched and later re-confirmed by the Inspector of Labour, the High Court dismissed the petition as it declined to interfere but granted liberty to pursue remedies based on the Inspector's order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to work out remedies in a manner known to law in respect of the order passed by the Inspector of Labour dated 30.9.02. No order as to costs.

V.Venkatesan, Vs the Registrar of Cooperative — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 06.07.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P. NO. 8689 OF 2013

¶6

V.Venkatesan 2. R.Srinivasan ... Petitioners

¶7

Vs - 1. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies No.170, Periyar EVR High Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Tiruvannamalai Zone Tiruvannamalai. 3. Tiruvannamalai Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society rep. By its Special Officer No.167, Theradi Street Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai Dt. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the 1^st respondent, quash the order of the 1^st respondent dated 21.1.11 bearing R.C. No.80143/10 CM2 and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners in the available vacancy of salesman as per the recommendations of the 2^nd respondent made in proceeding Na.Ka. No.7863/10/VH dated 30.11.10 and as per the orders of the Inspector of Labour dated 30.9.02 in Na.Ka.No.E/961/2002.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Balan Haridas

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The 1^st petitioner joined the services of the 3^rd respondent society on 1.8.95, the 2^nd petitioner joined the services of the

¶12

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

¶13

3^rd respondent society on 2.8.2000. While functioning as such without giving room for any complaint, the petitioners were sought to be retrenched on the ground that they had become surplus and, accordingly, they were retrenched vide order dated 30.7.02, which order was challenged before this Court and this Court had granted stay of the said order and by virtue of the said stay order, the petitioners were continuing in service. In the interregnum, the petitioners filed petition before the Inspector of Labour to confirm their services in view of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act and the said authority, by order dated 30.9.02, confirmed their services.

¶14

In the meanwhile, proposal emanated from the 2^nd respondent for making the services of the petitioners confirmed. The petitioners also submitted representation. Inspite of the abovesaid order, as also the proposal of the 2^nd respondent and their representation, the services of the petitioners were discontinued against which the petitioners preferred W.P. No.21090/08 and 21093/08 praying to implement the order passed by the Inspector of Labour. This Court, vide order dated 28.8.08 directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a particular time frame. Once again, proposal emanated from the 2^nd respondent for the continuance of the services of the petitioners. However, inspite of the same, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order on 21.1.11. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions as raised in the grounds in support of his plea, laid emphasis that inspite of a positive proposal emanating from the 2^nd respondent consecutively, the 1^st respondent has not taken note of the same in proper perspective. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Inspector of Labour has also not been considered in the light of the proposal of the 2^nd respondent and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

¶16

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, while sought to sustain the impugned order, however, submitted that this Court, may permit the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law on the basis of the order passed by the Inspector of Labour.

¶17

This Court heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶18

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

¶19

The facts in issue are not in dispute. Equally, the order passed by the Inspector of Labour is also not in dispute. However, what is more curious in this case is that twice the proposal for continuance of the services of the petitioners has emanated from the 2^nd respondent, but equally curious the said proposal has been rejected by the 1^st respondent. However, in the present status of the issue, this Court is not inclined to go into the said issue. It is borne out by record that an order has been passed by the Inspector of Labour in favour of the petitioners. That being the position, the course open to the petitioners is to pursue that chain and work out their remedies in accordance with law. In the fitness of things, as the matter stands as projected above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the 1^st respondent. However, this Court is of the considered view that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to work out their remedies ina manner known to law in respect of the order passed by the Inspector of Labour.

¶20

In such view of the matter, while this writ petition is
dismissed, however, liberty is granted to the petitioners to
work out their remedies in a manner known to law in respect of
the order passed by the Inspector of Labour dated 30.9.02.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies
No.170, Periyar EVR High Road
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op.
Societies, Tiruvannamalai Zone
Tiruvannamalai.
W.P. NO. 8689 OF 2013
mr[co]
srg 04/08/2020

¶21

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

V.Venkatesan, v. the Registrar of Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Venkatesan, v. the Registrar of Cooperative

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

Prakash Vs The Inspector of Police

Ayyanar Vs The Inspector of Police

Thangapandian Vs The Assistant commissioner of Police

P.Devarajulu, Vs the Secretary to Government

A.Marikannu Vs the Chief Engineer (Personnel)

B.Kanchana, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu