Disposed

Elayaraja v. The Chairman

Madras HC1 Apr 2024WP/9987/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a TANGEDCO recruitment notification for Gangman posts and sought regularisation of their services under a settlement. The court held disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in a writ petition and directed petitioners to approach the Industrial Court or make a representation to the employer, disposing of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach Industrial Court or make representation to employer to be decided within three months; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed/allowed.

Elayaraja Vs The Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶8

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶9

1.Elayaraja

¶10

2.Jaganathan

¶11

3.Karthi

¶12

4.Ponnar Sankar

¶13

5.Sathiskumar

¶14

6.Govindarajan

¶15

7.Kannan

¶16

8.Karthikeyan

¶17

9.Krishnan

¶18

.. Petitioners

¶19

¶20

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), 144, Anna Salai,

¶21

Chennai-2.

¶22

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶23

3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakal - 637 001 (Kaliapattu Division)

¶24

4.The Superintending Engineer,

¶25

Page 1 of 6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶28

TANGEDCO, Namakal - 637 001 (Morapalayam Division)

¶29

5.Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (CITU), rep. by its General Secretary, No.13, Mosque Street, Chepauk, Chennai-5. .. Respondents

¶30

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in respect of list of direct recruitment on the file of second respondent as per the notification No.1 of 2019 dated 7.3.2019 for the post of gagman trainee 2019-2021 on the file of second respondent and quash the same consequently direct the respondent Board to regularize the services of the petitioner as per the settlement and the order passed in Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam v. Inspection of Labour [(2009) 4 MLJ 472].

¶31

For the Petitioners : Mr.D.Murugan for Mr.B.Manoharan For the Respondents : Mr.Anandh Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶34

Heard Mr.D.Murugan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.B.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners; and, Mr.Anandh Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., learned counsel for the respondents.

¶35

Page 2 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶38

The petitioners are challenging the notification inviting

¶39

applications for filling in the post of Gangman. The petitioners also seek directions to regularise the services of the petitioners as per the settlement.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are not entitled for regularisation as per the settlement. The petitioners do not satisfy the conditions of the settlement. The petitioners were not paid ex gratia for the years 2005-2006 and 2009-2010.

¶41

The disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition.

¶42

Be that as it may, the petitioners have a remedy to go before the Industrial Court. The petitioners may also make a representation to the respondent/employer. In case such a representation is made, the same shall be decided by the

¶43

Page 3 of 6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶46

respondent/employer, preferably within three months from the date of the representation.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.10611 and 10612 of 2021 are closed. W.M.P.No.10610 of 2021 filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition is allowed and disposed of, inasmuch as the petitioners have paid separate court fee.

¶48

(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 01.04.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶49

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶52

¶53

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶54

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶55

3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakal 637 001 (Kaliapattu Division)

¶56

4.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakal 637 001 (Morapalayam Division)

¶57

Page 5 of 6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

¶60

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.

(sasi)

W.P.No.9987 of 2021

01.04.2024

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Elayaraja v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elayaraja v. The Chairman

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

S.Malarkodi Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board

B.H.Rajubettan Vs Accountant General

R.Madhusudhanan, Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

Mohta Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Venba Vs The Tahsildar

R.Sethu Subramanian, Vs the Secretary