The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Post Office Superintendent seeking to quash a Labour Tribunal award. The award granted an employee regularization as a Gramin Dak Sevak under Clause G of a dovetailed list scheme due to completed service days.
The writ petition was dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
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.
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.11042 of 2016 and
W.M.P. Nos.9610 and 9611 of 2016
The Superintendent of Post Office
Department of Posts Pudukkottai Division Pudukkottai Pudukkottai-622001. … Petitioner
-vs-
... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the file of the first respondent made in I.D.No.31 of 2013 dated 12.06.2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan For Respondents : Mr.R.Malaichamy (R2)
1/7
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
O R D E R
The petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent made in I.D.No.31 of 2013 dated 12.06.2014.
2/7
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
3/7
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
and reinstatement. According to the second respondent, he was working more than 21 years of service with the petitioner Management. Therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 25F of the ID Act and he is liable to reinstate in service with continuity of service, back wages and other monetary benefits. The Tribunal, after enquired the issue, allowed the petition in favour of the workman, which cannot be interfered with.
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
Government dated 23.12.1993 with regard to appointment to ED posts. Though the second respondent has not challenged the said reference . However, the said reference was allowed to continue before the first respondent. Thereby, the first respondent, after discussing the scheme introduced by the petitioner, passed the impugned award as per the reference particularly clause-G. For better understanding, the said clause is extracted hereunder:
''Provisional appointees for ED posts who are appointed after 11.02.1988 and allowed to continue for more than 240 days will also be included in the dovetailed list, based on their seniority, if they had put in not less than three years of service as per DG (posts) letter No.43-4/77-PEN dated 18.05.1979. This provisional appointees who have completed 240 days in any two years after 11.02.88 will also be included in the dovetailed list, based on their seniority.''
The above said scheme is squarely applicable to the petitioner as he was appointed in the year 1998 and rendered the service for more than 240 days. The Labour Court has elaborately discussed the issue and rightly passed an order stating that the petitioner herein was directed to include the workman in the seniority list prepared by the Management and considered for absorption in the department as Gramin Dak Sevak Delivery Agent as and when vacancy arises, which cannot be interfered with.
5/7
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
19.07.2023
Rli Index: Yes/No NCS : Yes/No
To
6/7
W.P. No. 11042 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Rli
W.P. No.11042 of 2016
19.07.2023
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order granting absorption benefit to an employee as per the dovetailed list scheme deserves interference.
Whether the petitioner's claim that the employee was not engaged for required days under recruitment rules warrants setting aside the award.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Superintendent of Post Office, Department of Posts, Pudukkottai Division
President, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai
V. Ganesan
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
