Dismissed

The General Manager v. Saraniyan.B

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP(MD)/13361/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by the employer seeking to quash the Assistant Commissioner's dismissal of a workman's application for permanent status. The Court held that the statutory right to regularize after 480 days prevails over the procedural defect of non-disclosure, directing the authority to consider the merits. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction to first respondent to file fresh application disclosing details within four weeks for the Assistant Commissioner to decide on merits.

The General Manager Vs Saraniyan.B — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13361 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.13361 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11262 and 23033 of 2023

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

1.B.Saraniyan Driver, DD 17178, 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.13361 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/326/2020, 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/326/2020, 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, claiming that the first respondent has completed 480 days as on 28.12.2016, however, he was confirmed only

¶19

2/9

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2023

¶22

on 13.04.2021. The main objection raised by the Management of the Corporation is that the workman has filed a separate application before the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A/C.P.S/3693/2019 and the same was withdrawn on 24.01.2020. Once he has withdrawn the claim for regularization, he cannot maintain the subsequent application filed for the same relief.

¶23

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.

¶24

4.The learned Counsel for the Management of the Corporation 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.No.3693/2019 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 application and its dismissal, he has

¶25

3/9

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2023

¶28

approached the Court with unclean hands and therefore he is not entitled for any relief.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

4/9

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.13361 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 27.10.2015 and completed his 480 days on 28.12.2016 and therefore, he was eligible for regularization w.e.f 28.12.2016. However, the regularization was made only w.e.f 13.04.2021 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

5/9

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2023

¶40

9.The first respondent workman claimed that he has joined the service on 27.05.2015, 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

¶41

given by the first respondent is also enclosed by the petitioner

¶42

Management in the writ petition. The same is extracted hereunder:

¶43

mDg;g[eh; 24/01/2020 B. ruzpad; nrk ey Xl;Leh; DV 77780 crpyk;gl;o fpis kJiu kz;lyk; 9952159639 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; 3693-2019 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 ehd; bjhlh;e;j e/fh/vz; 3693-2019 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 B. ruzpad; DV 77780

¶47

6/9

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.13361 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.13361 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.13361 of 2023

¶64

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶65

¶66

W.P(MD)No.13361 of 2023

¶67

12.09.2024

¶68

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

The General Manager v. Saraniyan.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. Saraniyan.B

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

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