Director of Employment and Training & Ors. v. S. Baskaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15.11.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANWrit Appeal Nos.431 to 435 of 2011M.P.No.1 of 2011 & M.P.No.2 of 2011 (4 Nos.)1. The Director of Employment and Training Chepauk Chennai-600 005.2. The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009.... Appellant in all W.As.vs1. S. Baskaran ...1st respondent in W.A.No.431/20112.J. Antony Arokiasamy Devadoss ...1st respondent in W.A.No.432/20113. S. Santhoshini ...1st respondent in W.A.No.433/20114. M. Royappan ...1st respondent in W.A.No.434/20115.K.B.George Vincent Hentry ...1st respondent in W.A.No.435/20116. The Correspondent St. Sebastian Industrial Training Centre Madhavaram Chennai-600 060. ... 2nd Respondent in all W.As.Prayer :- Writ Appeals filed against the common order dated 31.3.2010made in W.P.Nos.42171, 42172, 42174, 42175 and 33026 of 2002.Prayer in WP.Nos.42171, 42172, 42174 & 42175/2002:- Writ petitionfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for awrit of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in pursuantto the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedingdated 31.12.2001 and the order passed by the 1st respondent inProc.Na.Ka.No.Tho.Pa.2/10581/02 dated 17.09.2002 and 27.09.2002 andquash these orders and consequently direct the respondents to allowthe petitioners to continue in the same institute or in alternate toabsorb the petitioner in any other Aided Industrial TrainingInstitutes or in Government Industrial Training Institutes. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in WP.No.33026/2002:- Writ petition filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned orderpassed by the 2nd respondent in proceeding dated 31.12.2001 and quashthe same and consequently direct the respondents to allow thepetitioner to continue in the same institute or to absorb thepetitioner in any other Aided Industrial Training Institutes or inGovernment Industrial Training Institutes.For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan AGPFor Respondents : Mr.S.M.Subramanian for R.1 in all W.Ps.J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.)Whether retrenched Instructors of private industrial institutesare entitled for alternative employment in Government IndustrialTraining Institutes, is the core issue that arises for considerationin this intra-court appeals filed at the instance of the State ofTamil Nadu.Facts in Nutshell:2. The first respondent in the concerned appeals were appointedas Instructors/Junior Training Officers (hereinafter referred to as"Instructors") in St.Sebastian's Industrial Training Centre,Madhavaram. While so, the institution issued orders on 31 December2001 terminating the services of the Instructors. The Instructorsfiled writ petitions for issuing directions to the Government to givethem alternative employment. The writ petitions were disposed of bya learned Single Judge of this Court on 1 August 2002 directing theEmployment and Training Department to consider the representationsand pass appropriate orders on merits. Thereafter, therepresentations were considered by the first appellant. TheDirector, Department of Employment and Training rejected the requestfor alternative employment on the ground that the Instructors werenot Government Employees and as such, it was not possible to absorbthem in Government Technical Institutions. 3. The Instructors challenged the rejection orders before thisCourt in W.P.Nos.42171, 42172, 42174, 42175 and 33026 of 2002. Thelearned Single Judge opined that the Instructors were all working forthe last twelve years under the second respondent and as such, theyare entitled for alternative employment. The learned Judge placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reliance on a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.12, Labour and Employment(P2) Department dated 3 February 2010 to allow the writ petitions.The learned Judge ultimately directed the appellants to givealternative employment to the Instructors in any one of theGovernment Industrial Training Institutes under the State of TamilNadu. Feeling aggrieved by the positive direction given by thelearned Judge, the appellants are before this Court by way of thisintra-court appeal.Submissions:4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalfof the appellants, contended that the instructors were all employeesof a private Technical Teacher's Training Institute and as such therewas no question of their absorption in Government institutions. Thelearned Additional Government Pleader contended that the GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 3 February 2012 was in respect ofabsorption of the erstwhile employees of a Public Sector Corporation.Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said Government Order.5. The learned counsel for the Instructors submitted thatappointments of Instructors/Junior Training Officers were approved bythe Government and as such, they should be treated as Governmentemployees. According to the learned counsel, similar indulgence wasshown by the Government earlier resulting in issuing an order inG.O.Ms.No.12 Labour and Employment (P2) Department dated 3 February2010 and as such the learned Single Judge was fully justified ingiving a positive direction for absorption.Discussion:6. The Instructors were all employed by a Private IndustrialTraining Institute by name St. Sebastian's Industrial Training Centreat Madhavaram, Chennai. The appointments were made without referenceto the Government. Since it was an industrial Training Institute,instructors should possess the required qualification. It was onlyfor the said purpose, the Government considered the qualification ofthe Instructors and approved their appointments. That does not meanthat the approved instructors have become the employees ofGovernment.7. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that theappointments were all approved by the Government and as such they aredeemed to be the employees of Government. Similarly, the GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.12 Labour and Employment (P2) Department dated 3February 2010 was taken as a basic material to arrive at a factualfinding that similarly placed employees were earlier absorbed inGovernment service. We have perused the said Government Order. Itis found that the employees covered by the said Government Order wereretrenched by the Tamil Nadu Steels Limited and they were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accommodated in other Public Sector Corporations. The Governmentalso permitted the Commissioner of Employment and Training to fill up184 posts of Junior Training Officer and to consider those retrenchedofficers against those posts. Therefore, it is clear that theGovernment Order referred to by the learned Single Judge pertains tothe employees of a State owned Corporation. However, that is not thecase here. The instructors were all employees of a privateinstitution. The Government was not bound to absorb them in serviceconsequent to their retrenchment. The Government has not given anyoffer to the Instructors that in case, the private institution isclosed, they would be given alternative employment in Governmentservice. The Instructors have no right to direct the Government toaccommodate them in Government Service. We are, therefore, not in aposition to agree with the views expressed by the learned SingleJudge as a supportive reason to allow the writ petitions.Conclusion:8. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed. The writpetitions in W.P.Nos.42171, 42172, 42174, 42175 and 33026 of 2002 aredismissed. Consequently, the connected Mps are closed. No costs.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTr/To1. The Director of Employment and Training Chepauk Chennai-600 005.2. The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009.1 cc to Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate, SR.No.69718+1 cc to .Government Pleader SR.69839 Writ Appeal Nos.431 to 435 of 2011TRM {CO}TP/26.11.2012.