The Commissioner Vs S.Mahalingam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Commissioner Vs S.Mahalingam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition dismissed with no costs; petitioner directed to honour the impugned award of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore (I.D.No.49 of 2012, dated 16.09.2013 — reinstatement with continuity of service, backwages and attendant benefits) within two weeks of receipt of the order; the interim-stay miscellaneous petition (M.P.No.1 of 2014) is consequently dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent was an employee of the petitioner rather than merely a deputationist from his parent department. +2 more

Court's answer

Because the petitioner itself paid the workman's salary until termination, whereas neither Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 nor the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, did so, the workman was not a deputationist but an employee of the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Even on the petitioner's own deputation argument, salary ought to have been paid by the parent department; in fact the petitioner's payment of salary until termination establishes that the workman remained on the petitioner's payroll.

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to produce any document showing the workman was a temporary worker, and its own written statement admitted it could not ascertain from its records why the workman was terminated; this proves the termination was blatantly illegal.ratio¶43
That the workman's transfer/deputation to the petitioner was effected through a Government Order invokes res ipsa loquitur that the Government was aware of his employment with the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J., sole judge; decided 07.04.2025) dismissed W.P.No.20564 of 2014, an Article 226 certiorari petition by the Commissioner, Cheiyyar Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai District, challenging the award dated 16.09.2013 in I.D.No.49 of 2012 of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, which reinstated workman S. Mahalingam (engaged as Helper with the Forest Department since May 1982, moved by G.O.No.592 of 16.08.1989, employed till 31.10.1996) with continuity of service, backwages and all attendant benefits. Key rulings of THIS court: (i) salary was paid until termination solely by the petitioner and never by the parent department or the DFO, proving the man was the petitioner's employee, not a deputationist; (ii) the management produced no document showing temporary employment and its own written statement admitted it could not ascertain why he was terminated — hence the termination was 'blatantly illegal'; (iii) the Government-Order-mediated posting invoked res ipsa loquitur of official awareness of the employment; (iv) with about eight years' continuous service under the DFO, Social Forest Division, Vellore plus seven years under the petitioner, and no proof of gainful employment during the interregnum, the Court confirmed the award without interference. The petitioner was ordered to honour the award within two weeks; the interim stay of 04.08.2014 (M.P.No.1 of 2014) fell away by dismissal; no costs. An earlier dispute (I.D.No.267 of 2010) had failed only because the real appointing authority (DFO, Social Forest Division, Vellore) was not a party. No precedent cases were cited; no counsel appeared at hearing for R1–R3.

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.04.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

The Commissioner, Cheiyyar Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai District.

...Petitioner

Vs.

S.Mahalingam

Divisional Forest Officer,

Thiruvannamalai.

The Conservator of Forest, Fort, Vellore – 632 004.

The Presiding Officer,

Principal Labour Court, Vellore. ...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 16.09.2013 made in I.D.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, quash the same.

Page No.1 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthukumar, AAG Assisted by M/s.Madonna Akashni For Respondents : No appearance, for R1 : Mr.M.Murali, GA, for R2 & R3 : R4 – Labour Court

O R D E R

This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 16.09.2013 made in I.D.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Labour

Court, Vellore.

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent was engaged as Helper in the office of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents since May, 1982 and later he was transferred to the office of the petitioner on deputation as per G.O.No.592 dated 16.08.1989 and was employed there till 31.10.1996. While so, alleging that, he was illegally terminated from service all of a sudden without following any rules, the 1^st respondent raised the present dispute in I.D.No.49 of 2012 and the Labour court, vide impugned award dated 16.09.2013 ordered reinstatement of the 1^st respondent with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

Page No.2 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Though notice was served and Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 1^st respondent, however, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the 1^st respondent. Considering the period of pendency of this Writ petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same based on the available materials.

On a perusal of the material documents placed on record particularly the impugned order it is seen that, initially the 1^st respondent raised a dispute as against the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents seeking regularisation of his services in I.D.No.267 of 2010 before the Principal Labour Court, Vellore and the same was rejected by the Labour court holding that the initial appointing authority of the 1^st respondent was the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore and that the 1^st respondent was not appointed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. It is on this very point, the earlier industrial dispute raised by

Page No.3 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

the 1^st respondent was dismissed, since the appointing authority namely, the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore was not made party in the said dispute and therefore, no relief could be granted and no positive order could be passed. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent raised the present dispute in I.D.No.49 of 2012 by impleading the petitioner herein. Before the labour court, the management side witness has accepted that the 1^st respondent was in employment in another department of the Government without any break and that therefore, he was an employee of the petitioner and the Social Forestry Division, Vellore.

Though the petitioner has taken a stand that the 1^st respondent/ workman joined its office only on deputation, the fact remains that his salary till the date of his termination was paid only by the petitioner. For the sake of arguments, even if it is admitted that the 1^st respondent had indeed joined the office of the petitioner on deputation, since he was only deputed, his salary should have been paid by his parent department. However, neither the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents nor the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore had paid the salary of the 1^st respondent. Even as per the admission of

Page No.4 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

the petitioner, it was the petitioner who paid salary to the 1^st respondent/ workman. This shows that the 1^st respondent/workman was not sent on deputation to the office of the petitioner; rather he was only an employee of the petitioner.

Likewise, the petitioner has failed to produce any document showing that the 1^st respondent was employed as a temporary worker. Most importantly, in the written statement of the petitioner management, they have categorically admitted that they could not even ascertain from the records of their office as to why the 1^st respondent was terminated from service. This very fact proves that the termination of the 1^st respondent is blatantly illegal.

Having extracted work from the 1^st respondent for almost fifteen (15) years under the petitioner and the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, it is not fair on the part of the Government to have sent out the 1^st respondent/workman without any cause. The fact that the 1^st respondent was sent on deputation by passing a Government order should invoke res ipsa loquitur that is, the Government was aware of the

Page No.5 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

employment of the 1^st respondent with the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore, for a considerable point of time.

From the facts and discussions made above, it is clear that the 1^st respondent was in continuous service only with the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore for about eight (8) years and later served the petitioner for another seven (7) years. Further, the petitioner had miserably failed to establish that the 1^st respondent was gainfully employed during the non-employment period. Thereby, the Labour court, taking into consideration the above factors, had directed reinstatement of the 1^st respondent with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said well reasoned order of the labour court and the same is confirmed.

At the time of admission of this Writ petition, this Court had granted interim stay on 04.08.2014 in MP.No.1 of 2014. In view of the above order being passed in this writ petition, the said Miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

Page No.6 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands dismissed and the petitioner is directed to honour the impugned award of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore made in I.D.No.49 of 2012 dated 16.09.2013 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is dismissed, for the reasons aforesaid.

07.04.2025

skt NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

To:

The Commissioner, Cheiyyar Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai District.

Divisional Forest Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

The Conservator of Forest, Fort, Vellore – 632 004.

The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

Page No.7 of 8

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

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

skt

W.P.No.20564 of 2014

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

07.04.2025

Page No.8 of 8

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