Dismissed

The General Manager v. Sathiyamoorthy .a

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP(MD)/13360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A transport corporation challenged a labour authority's order allowing a driver's second application for permanent status under the Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman Act. The court held withdrawal pursuant to the Management's assurance was no bar and dismissed the writ, directing the workman to file a fresh application disclosing the earlier one.

What the court decided

AI extract

The General Manager Vs Sathiyamoorthy .a — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11268 and 23044 of 2023

¶7

The General Manager, Tamilnadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Kazhagam (Madurai) Limited, Madurai Region, Bypass Road, Madurai -16. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.A.Sathiyamoorthy, Driver, DD 17176, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai Region, Usulampatti Branch, C/o.General Secretary, Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thoilalar Sangam, Reg Number - 157/MDU, Va.U.C. 2nd Street, Arul Nagar, By-pass Road, Madurai-625 016.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour (Enforcement), Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

1/9

¶13

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement), Virudhunagar pertaining to its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A/325/2020, dated 10.08.2022 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.SC.Herold Singh For R1 : Mr.A.Rahul For R2 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition has been filed as against the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A/325/2020, dated 10.08.2022.

¶18

2.The said order was passed by the second respondent in the interim application filed by the Management raising preliminary objections for the application filed by the first respondent under Section 3 of Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred as 'Act') claiming

¶19

2/9

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶22

that the first respondent has completed 480 days as on 21.12.2016, however, he was confirmed only on 05.02.2021. The main preliminary objection raised by the Management therein is that the workman has filed

¶23

a separate application before the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A/C.P.S/3694/2019. Once he has withdrawn the claim for regularization, he cannot maintain the subsequent application filed for the same relief.

¶24

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner Management submitted that the said withdrawal was made without seeking any permission for filing a fresh application and therefore, the second application filed by the first respondent cannot be maintained by the authority.

¶25

4.The learned Counsel for the Management has also raised another ground that the second application was filed by the first respondent by suppressing the earlier application in Na.Ka.No.A/C.P.S/3694/2019 filed by him, which was withdrawn by him vide order dated 24.01.2020 and therefore, on this ground also, the second application ought to have been rejected by the second respondent. Since the first respondent has filed the second application suppressing the material fact of the earlier

¶26

3/9

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶29

application and its dismissal, he has approached the Court with unclean hands and therefore he is not entitled for any relief.

¶30

5.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per Section 3 of the Act, on completion of 480 days, the permanent status is conferred automatically and therefore, there is no necessity for filing a separate application. The Management has not granted the relief as per the Act and therefore, he was constrained to file the application. In the first application, an assurance was given by the writ petitioner/Management that the service of the first respondent would be regularised and therefore, on the bonafide belief that they would regularize the service, the first respondent has withdrawn the first application.

¶31

6.The learned Counsel for the first respondent has also referred to the letter given for withdrawal and submitted that this letter of withdrawal was given only by referring to the undertaking given by the Management of the Corporation and therefore, the first respondent is not correct in taking the plea of second application. As per the Act they are entitled for permanent status on completion of 480 days and the earlier 4/9

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶34

withdrawal pursuant to the undertaking of Management is not a bar for claiming the status, which is provided under the Statute.

¶35

7.This Court considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶36

8.According to the petitioner, the first respondent has joined as reserve crew on 05.08.2015 and completed his 480 days on 21.12.2016 and therefore, he was eligible for regularization w.e.f 21.12.2016. However, the regularization was made only w.e.f 05.02.2021 and therefore, on 05.03.2020, the petitioner has filed the second application. It is the statutory right, which has been conferred on the workman. Every workman, who is in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calender months in an industrial establishment shall be made as permanent as per Section 3 of Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 and therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept this ground raised by the petitioner Management.

¶37

9.The first respondent workman claimed that he joined the service

¶38

5/9

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶41

on 05.08.2015, and was not regularised even after the completion of 480 days. Therefore, the workman is entitled to file an application as per Section 3 of the Act. The earlier application filed by this petitioner on 13.12.2019 was withdrawn on 24.01.2020. The letter of withdrawal given by the first respondent is also enclosed by the petitioner Management in the writ petition. The same is extracted hereunder:

¶42

mDg;g[eh; 24/01/2020 A. rj;jpaK:h;j;jp nrk ey Xl;Leh; DV77971 crpyk;gl;o fpis kJiu kz;lyk; 9626472755

¶43

bgWeh; bjhHpyhsh; cjtp Mizah; mkyhf;fk;. tpUJefh;/

¶44

Iah.

¶45

ehd; crpyk;gl;o fpisapy; nrk Xl;Leuhf gzp bra;J tUfpnwd; bjhHpyhsh; Mizaj;jpy; (tpUJefh;)480 ehl;fs; gzp Koj;jjhf e/fh/vz; 3694-2019 vd;w nkw;bfhz;l tHf;fpid bjhlh;e;njd; jw;nghJ eph;thfk; vdf;F jpdf; Typ Xl;Leuhf gzp Miz tH';f eltof;if vLf;fg;gl;L tUtjhf bjhptpj;Js;shh;fs;/ vdnt bjhlh;e;j e/fh/vz; 3694-2019 vd;w tHf;fpid thg!; bgw;W bfhs;s KG kdJld; rk;kjpf;fpnwd; vd;gij bjhptpj;Jbfhs;fpnwd;/

¶46

,lk/ tpUJefh; ; ,g;gof;F ehs/24/01/2020 ; jh';fs; cz;ika[s;s A. rj;jpaK:h;j;jp DV 77971

¶47

6/9

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶50

10.It is not in dispute that the withdrawal has been made by referring to the assurance, which the first respondent has received from the writ petitioner/Management of the Corporation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is barred from maintaining the second application. However, the non-disclosure of the earlier application is a mistake on the part of the first respondent, which cannot be ignored.At the same time, a right which has been conferred on the workman as per Section 3 of the said Act, also cannot be denied.

¶51

11.Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the first respondent to file a fresh application under Section 3 of the Act disclosing the details, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall entertain the application and shall decide the application on its merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order and also by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner/Management of the Corporation. The Management of the Corporation is also at liberty to raise the grounds raised in this petition

¶52

7/9

¶53

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

¶54

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶55

before the second respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶56

12.09.2024

¶57

Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No

¶58

¶59

¶60

The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour (Enforcement), Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶61

8/9

¶62

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

¶63

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶64

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶65

¶66

W.P(MD)No.13360 of 2023

¶67

12.09.2024

¶68

9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The General Manager v. Sathiyamoorthy .a

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The General Manager v. Sathiyamoorthy .a

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arulmigu Thirucoutrallanathaswamy Temple Vs The Additional Commissioner of Labour /

Rajesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Management Vs the Special Deputy

Vallikumari Vs R.alagumeena IAS

A.Shanmugam Vs Thirumathi. Santha

The General Manager Vs Soundarapandiyan. P