Dismissed¶10

Central Organisation v. The Management

Madras HC6 Mar 2025WP/5817/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO; Ennore Thermal Power Station; Mettur Thermal Power Station; contract labour absorption as Helpers from 01.05.1999 after 480 days continuous service; regularization of pre-absorption service 08.08.1990 to 30.04.1999; terminal benefits and pension; Rule 11 Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978; Industrial Tribunal Chennai common award 28.08.2009 in I.D.Nos.30/2004, 66/2004, 6/2004, 12/2005; COTEE union writ petitions; followed Division Bench judgment W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2015 dated 28.10.2015; W.P.(MD).No.11604 of 2009; representation to Board for pensionary benefits; writ petitions dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition M.P.No.1 of 2015 closed; petitioner at liberty to make a representation to the first respondent Board for grant of pensionary benefits.

Central Organisation Vs The Management — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand of the Union that the service rendered from 08.08.1990 by the contract labourers who were absorbed as Helpers in ETPS/MTPS with effect from 01.05.1999 shall be taken as regular service. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The issue having been settled already and the present case falling squarely within the four corners of the Division Bench decision (judgment dated 28.10.2015 in W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2015), the writ petitions are dismissed on the same lines by following that Division Bench judgment.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent Board for grant of pensionary benefits.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani J., 06-03-2025) dismissed WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015 filed by COTEE (Ennore and Mettur Branch Units) challenging the common award dated 28.08.2009 of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D.Nos.30/2004, 66/2004, 6/2004 and 12/2005 (communicated by Labour Department Letter No.Aa/404/2010 dated 23.07.2010) in so far as I.D.Nos.30 and 66 of 2004 rejected regularization, for all purposes including terminal benefits and pension, of contract labourers' service from 08.08.1990 to 30.04.1999 preceding their absorption as Helpers in ETPS/MTPS from 01.05.1999. Treating the point as settled by the Division Bench judgment dated 28.10.2015 in W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2015 (arising from W.P.(MD).No.11604 of 2009 concerning 50% weightage of contractor service for pension under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978) and finding the case within its four corners, the Court dismissed the writ petitions on the same lines by following that judgment, while observing it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent Board for grant of pensionary benefits. No costs; connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 closed.

¶1

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

WP No. 5817 of 2015

¶9

1. Central Organisation

¶10

of Tamilnadu Electricity Employees, Shortly COTEE, Ennore Branch, Unit, Rep. by its Secretary, Ennore, Chennai57.

¶11

Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

The Management Ennore Thermal Power Station, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, (Now renamed as Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd.), Ennore, Chennai-57.

¶14

2.The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

WP No. 5818 of 2015

¶17

Central Organisation

¶18

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

¶19

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶20

of Tamilnadu Electricity Employees, Shortly COTEE, Mettur Branch, Unit, Rep. by its Secretary, Mettur Dam, Salem.

¶21

Petitioner(s)

¶22

¶23

The Management Mettur Thermal Power Station, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, (Now renamed as Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd.), Mettur Dam, Salem.

¶24

2.The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

¶25

Respondent(s)

¶26

WP No. 5817 of 2015

¶27

PRAYER

¶28

Calling for the records pertaining to the common award dated 28.08.2009 in I.D.Nos.30/2004, 66/2004, 6/2004 and 12/2005 and communicated to the petitioner Union by the Labour Department in their Letter No.Aa/404/2010 dated 23.07.2010, quash the same in so far as the award in I.D.No.30/2004 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take the service rendered by the workmen from 08.08.1990 to 30.04.1999 as regular service along with their service after their absorption on and from 01.05.1999 for all purposes, with all consequential benefits, award costs.

¶29

WP No. 5818 of 2015

¶30

PRAYER

¶31

Calling for the records pertaining to the common award dated 28.08.2009 in I.D.Nos.30/2004, 66/2004, 6/2004 and 12/2005 quash the same in so far as the

¶32

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

¶33

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶34

award in I.D.No.66/2004 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take the service rendered by the workmen from 08.08.1990 to 30.04.1999 as regular service along with their service after their absorption on and from 01.05.1999 for all purposes, with all consequential benefits, award costs.

¶35

In both W.P.'s

¶36

For Petitioner(s): V.Ajoy Khose

¶37

For Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Gopalan For M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co For R1 R-2 Labour Court

¶38

COMMON ORDER

¶39

Challenging the common Award (ID.Nos.30, 66 & 6 of 2004 and 12 of

¶40

2005), dated 28.08.2009 passed by the industrial Tribunal insofar as I.D.Nos.30

¶41

and 66 of 2004, wherein, the claim made by the workmen for regularization of

¶42

their service for all the purposes from 08.08.1990 to 30.04.1999 has been

¶43

rejected, the petitioner, viz.,Central Organization of Tamil Electricity Employees (in short, COTEE) representing the workmen, has come forward

¶44

with the present Writ Petitions.

¶45

The brief facts in common pertaining to the present Writ Petitions are

¶46

as follows:

¶47

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

¶48

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶49

2.1. The workmen in I.D.Nos.30 and 66 of 2004, who were initially

¶50

inducted as contractor labourers in the year 1990 in various Circles and Units of TANGEDCO including the Ennore Thermal Power Stations (ETPS), subsequently, came to be absorbed as Helpers on and from 01.05.1999 onwards since they completed 480 days of continuous service. The grievance of the workmen is that since they had already reached the age of 50 years on the date of their absorption, they were not able to get pension and hence, they raised industrial disputes, claiming that their service rendered from 08.08.1990 to 30.04.1999 should be treated as regular service for all purposes including terminal benefits and pension.

¶51

The disputes raised by the present workmen, viz., I.D.Nos.30 and 66 of 2004 along with similar disputes raised by other set of workmen, were taken up

¶52

for adjudication by the Tribunal, wherein, the following reference has been

¶53

made, viz.,

¶54

i) Whether the demand of the Union that the service rendered from 08.08.1990 by the contract labourers who were absorbed as Helpers in ETPS/MTPS with effect from

¶55

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

¶56

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶57

01.05.1999, shall be taken as regular service?

¶58

ii) To what relief they are entitled to?

¶59

The Tribunal, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence

¶60

let in by both parties in various industrial disputes, viz., ID.Nos.30, 66 & 6 of 2004 and 12 of 2005, has passed the Common Award, dated 28.08.2009, dismissing all the I.Ds., holding that the claim made therein, was not justified. Hence the Writ Petitions.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that when the Board

¶62

itself has abolished the contract labour system with effect from 01.05.1999 and

¶63

absorbed the contract labourers working in all four Thermal Power Stations including ETPS with effect from 01.05.1999 and when such absorption was made by identifying the contract labourers, who were in service as on

¶64

05.01.1998 based on their length of service and seniority and only the workmen

¶65

who have completed 480 days of service as on 05.01.1998, the second respondent / Tribunal ought to have ordered for regularisation of services of the

¶66

contract labourers which they have rendered prior to the date of their

¶67

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

¶68

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶69

absorption, that is, prior to 01.05.1999, without doing so, rejecting the claim of the workmen, which is per se unsustainable.

¶70

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / management

¶71

submits that a similarly situated person has filed a writ petition before this Court

¶72

in W.P.(MD).No.11604 of 2009 seeking to sanction 50% of his service through

¶73

contractors to be taken for the purpose of calculation of qualified service for

¶74

pension in terms of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, however,

¶75

the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2014. Challenging the

¶76

same, the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station has filed a writ appeal before this

¶77

Court in W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2015 and the same was allowed vide judgment

¶78

dated 28.10.2015. Since the issue is covered by the aforesaid Division Bench

¶79

judgement of this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for

¶80

dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶81

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶82

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

¶83

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶84

Admittedly, similarly situated persons have filed a writ petition before

¶85

this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11604 of 2009 seeking to sanction 50% of service through contractors to be taken for the purpose of calculation of qualified service for pension in terms of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and the said writ petition was allowed, vide order dated 27.02.2014. Challenging the same, the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station has filed a writ appeal before this Court in W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2015 and the same was allowed vide judgement dated 28.10.2015.

¶86

. The dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the

¶87

aforesaid decision supports the case of the petitioners. In view of the issue

¶88

having been settled already and the present case falls squarely within the four

¶89

corners of the said Division Bench decision, this Court is inclined to dismiss

¶90

these Writ Petitions on the same lines by following the above Division Bench judgement. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent Board for grant of pensionary benefits.

¶91

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

¶92

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶93

10. With the above observation and direction, these writ petitions are

¶94

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶95

06-03-2025

¶96

RAP Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶97

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

¶98

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶99

¶100

The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

¶101

The Management

¶102

Ennore Thermal Power Station, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, (Now renamed as Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd.), Ennore, Chennai-57. 3. The Management

¶103

Mettur Thermal Power Station, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, (Now renamed as Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd.), Mettur Dam, Salem.

¶104

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

¶105

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015

¶106

M.DHANDAPANI J.

¶107

RAP

¶108

WP Nos. 5817 & 5818 of 2015