Writ petitions seeking regularization of daily wage helpers/mazdoors in TANGEDCO. The Court observed that factual matrix requires proper authority and noted respondents' suggestion to treat petitioners similarly placed with others if representation is made. Petitions disposed with these observations.
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.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.13416, 27341, 26378 & 26379 of 2021
1.R.Venugopal 2.N.Vetrivel 3.K.Palanivel
4.V.Devanathan 5.E.Ramesh 6.G.Murugan 7.R.Radhakrishnan 8.A.Balakrishnan 9.R.Varadharajan 10.R.Karthikeyan 11.E.Elankumaran 12.K.Rajakumar 13.M.Balakrishnan 14.V.Sugumar 15.R.Saravanan 16.S.Thirugnanasambantham 17.S.Devanathan 18.S.Sakthivel 19.A.Devanathan 20.S.Bismilla 21.K.Devanathan 22.N.Vijayakumar 23.S.Sathish 24.K.Arivazhagan 25.S.Chandran
Page No.1 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
26.R.Kumar 27.S.Ramamoorthy 28.V.Veeramuthu 29.G.Inbasekar 30.E.Saravanan 31.A.Neelakandan 32.P.Thatchinamoorthy 33.K.Ellaraj 34.S.Velmurugan 35.R.Seetharaman 36.R.Vishnuraj 37.C.Vijayan 38.M.Senthilkumar 39.K.Chandrasekaran 40.S.P.Thaveethu 41.G.V.Viswanathan 42.P.Balaguru 43.K.Kadhiresan 44.C.Danial 45.M.Senthilkumar 46.R.Venkatachalapathy 47.P.Kamalakannan 48.P.Thirukumaran 49.B.Prabu 50.S.Pandian 51.V.Kannadasan
... Petitioners in W.P.No.12619 of 2021
1.M.Kumaresan 2.P.Chandramohan 3.J.Prabhu 4.M.David Rajan 5.K.Vasanth 6.K.Sudhakar 7.C.Prabu 8.V.Gothandaraman
Page No.2 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
9.S.Gunasekaran 10.K.Arivusudevan 11.R.Iyanar 12.C.Arul 13.V.Venkatapathy
... Petitioners in W.P.No.25871 of 2021
1.R.Radhakrishnan 2.T.Sekar 3.K.Manoharan 4.K.Kathavarayan 5.F.George 6.M.Moses 7.P.Easuraja 8.T.Rasakumaran 9.P.Gowthaman 10.K.Arulmani 11.D.Paramaguru 12.T.Sakthivel 13.S.Rajkumar 14.S.Arokia Santhosh Kumar 15.F.Anandaraja 16.I.Antony 17.A.Senthil 18.R.Veerakumar 19.S.Iruthayaleavae 20.A.Ramar 21.R.Santhilal 22.A.Sampath 23.S.Sankar Ganesh 24.M.Nagaraj 25.E.Silambarasan 26.S.Sathiyamaran 27.P.Senthamilselvan 28.V.Dhanasekaran 29.D.Ramesh
Page No.3 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
30.R.Raguraman
36.K.Balamurugan
... Petitioners in W.P.No.25043 of 2021
Vs.
... Respondents in all W.Ps
Prayer in all W.Ps: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners as Helpers / Mazdoors in the respondents' Corporation.
In all W.Ps
For Petitioners : Mr.V.J.Arulraj For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co COMMON ORDER
Page No.4 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
These Writ Petitions have been filed for the issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the
petitioners as Helpers / Mazdoors in the respondents' Corporation.
2 . Heard Mr.V.J.Arulraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioners have been appointed in the Corporation as Helpers / Mazdoors on daily wage basis.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the similarly placed persons have been regularised and such benevolence should be extended to these petitioners as well.
5. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that
the petitioners have already filed an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court and got an award and later filed Writ Petitions to enforce those awards.
6. In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the Writ
Page No.5 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
Petitions are not maintainable. Since there are factual matrix like date of appointment, nature of appointment, period of appointment etc., have to be dealt before granting orders, the petitioners could have approached the appropriate authority before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the respondents consider that the petitioners are also similarly placed as that of other persons whose services have been regularised already in large numbers, the same order can be passed in the case of the petitioners also in accordance with law and on merits of the representation made by the petitioners.
7. With the above observations, these Writ Petitions are disposed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.02.2024
Index : Yes /No Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking gsk
Page No.6 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
To
Page No.7 of 8
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
W.P.Nos.12619, 25871 & 25043 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.13416, 27341, 26378 & 26379 of 2021
13.02.2024
Page No.8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, appointed as daily wage Helpers/Mazdoors, are entitled to regularization of their services?
Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable when an Industrial Dispute award already exists?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Venugopal
N.Vetrivel
K.Palanivel
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
The Superintending Engineer
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
