High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESANW.P.Nos.4204, 9520, 13888 & 21547 of 200301. C.Mahalingam02. M.S.Eswaran03. K.Manoharan04. K.Rajendran05. J.Leelavathi06. A.Chinnaiyan07. N.Srinivasan08. N.Sekar09. G.Ganesan10. P.Krishnasamy11. D.Periasamy12. M.Jothi13. P.Jayaprakash14. R.Ravichandramohan15. C.Dhanavel16. R.Ravichandran17. K.Selvaraju18. P.Kamaraju19. J.Mahalakshmi20. B.Nallamuthu...Petitioners in21. K.Rajavelu W.P.No.4204/ 0301. P.Dhanalakshmi02. P.Kaliammal03. P.Venkataraman04. A.Krishnan05. V.Rukmani06. G.Sumathi07. S.Ravi08. N.Nirmala09. K.Gopalakrishnan...Petitioners in10. R.Gopal W.P.No.9520/0301. D.Jayasankaran02. S.Chandrasekaran03. K.Sivasamy04. Ranjini Sulochana05. M.C.Krishnan06. P.Arumugam07. R.Saraswathi08. R.Ramakrishnan09. M.Subbaiah10. A.Krishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. N.Kumar12. R.Gunasekaran13. R.Natarajan...Petitioners in14. N.Mohan W.P.No.13888/0301. V.Muthusami02. N.Sekar03. G.Ganesan04. N.Srinivasan05. P.Krishnasamy06. J.Alexander Jalastin07. P.Kamaraju08. A.Chinnaiyan09. E.A.Subramani...Petitioners in10. N.Nirmala W.P.No.21547/03-Vs-The State of Tamil Nadu rep.bythe Secretary to GovernmentSole respondent inAgriculture DepartmentW.P.Nos.4204 &Secretariat, Chennai-9...9520 of 2003State of Tamil Nadu rep.by itsAgricultural ProductionCommissioner and Secretary to Government1st respondent inFort St.GeorgeW.P.Nos.13888 &Chennai 600 009...21547 of 2003Tamil Nadu Agro IndustriesDevelopment Corporation Limitedrep.by its Managing DirectorAgro House2nd respondent inThiru Vi Ka Industrial EstateW.P.Nos.13888 &Guindy, Chennai 600 032 ... 21547 of 2003W.P.Nos.4204 & 9520 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of therespondent in connection with the order passed by him in his letterMs.No.421 dated 26.12.02 and quash the same and direct the respondentto provide alternative employment with continuity of service in anypost in the State of Tamil Nadu in any of the existing or immediatefuture vacancies before filling of the same by way of directrecruitment to the petitioners. W.P.Nos.13888 & 21547 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of thefirst respondent in connection with the order passed by him in hisletter Ms.No.421 dated 26.12.02 and quash the same and direct thefirst respondent to provide alternative employment with continuity ofservice and pay protection in any post in any of the existing orimmediate future vacancies. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners:: Mr.R.Singaravelan inW.P.Nos.4204 & 9520 of 2003Mr.R.Karthikeyan inW.P.Nos.13888 & 21547 of 2003For Respondents::Ms.SnehaGovernment Advocate for StateNo appearance for CorporationORDER The batch of writ petitions questions the letter dated26.12.2002 issued by the Agricultural Production Commissioner andSecretary to Government. By that order, the request of thepetitioners to consider them on par with TANCOF employees who havebeen attached to Agriculture Department was rejected. Thesepetitioners are all the employees of Tamil Nadu Agro IndustriesDevelopment Corporation Limited (for short, "the Corporation")attached to Agriculture Department. By G.O.Ms.No.339 Agriculture(AE.II) Department dated 28.11.2001, the Government, having regard tothe accumulated loss sustained by the Corporation, directed theclosure of the Corporation. On the date when the closure wasordered, there were 329 employees. The employees including thepetitioners numbering 237 were issued with the notices under Section25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the permission of theState Government was sought to retrench these employees. The saidmove was opposed. But, nevertheless, the Government passed orders inG.O.(D) No.163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated 26.2.2002retrenching the employees. At the time when such order was passed,the Agriculture Department was also requested to give sympatheticconsideration for the rehabilitation of the workmen and to extend allconcession and benefits permissible. It appears that by theimpugned order, the said request was rejected giving rise to thepresent writ petitions. 2. I have heard Mr.R.Singaravelan & Mr.R.Karthikeyan, respectivelearned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Sneha, learned GovernmentAdvocate for the State. 3. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. There is no disputethat the Corporation was ordered to be closed on account of theaccumulated loss and the difficulties experienced in the continuanceof the Corporation. The Government therefore issued the GovernmentOrder for closure and the employees were retrenched. Afterretrenchment, as many as 36 employees, who are similarly placed likethe petitioners, have been absorbed in Agricultural Department byG.O.Ms.No.241 Agriculture (AE) Department dated 8.8.2002. A copy ofthe said Government Order is annexed to the typed-set of papers inW.P.No.13888 of 2003. By that order, the employees, who wereretrenched, have been taken back with a further direction thatwhatever the ex-gratia amount paid to them should be recovered inmonthly instalments from their salary. In terms of Section 25-H ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, in case of absorption after retrenchment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as against the available post, such absorption should be on the basisof seniority. These 36 employees were retrenched subsequent to thepetitioners and the same is not in dispute and equally the fact thatthey have been taken back into service is also not in dispute. Thatapart, the G.O.(D).No.163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated26.2.2002 had directed that the grievance of the retrenched employeesshould be considered sympathetically. The rehabilitation as intendedby the Government does not reflect in the impugned order, which isonly a letter addressed by the Agricultural Production Commissionerand Secretary to Government. The said letter, in my opinion, iscontrary to the Government Order dated 26.2.2002. The impugned orderalso does not say as to why the claim of the petitioners cannot beconsidered on par with the TANCOF employees. 4. The petitioners have also raised the question ofdiscrimination meted out to them compared to the treatment given tothe TANCOF employees in absorbing them into service. The respondentshave a defence to say that they were deputed to the said federationand engaged on contract basis for a period of 3 months + 3 months andlater on they were absorbed. Such deputation was made on the basisof the option given by them, whereas the petitioners have not optedand therefore they cannot be equated to them. In this regard, thesubmission of the learned Government Advocate must be accepted. 5. Be that as it may, for the reasons that as many as 36employees, who were similarly situated, have been absorbed byG.O.Ms.No.241 Agriculture (AE) Department dated 8.8.2002,particularly they being retrenched subsequently when compared to thepetitioners, and having regard to the G.O.(D) No.163 Labour andEmployment (A1) Department dated 26.2.2002 directing rehabilitationof the retrenched employees of the Corporation, I do not find anyjustification in the impugned letter rejecting the request of thepetitioners. Accordingly, the impugned Letter Ms.No.421 dated26.12.2002 is set aside. The respondent-Agricultural ProductionCommissioner and Secretary to Government is directed to consider thecase of the petitioners sympathetically for absorption in any otherdepartment to which they are eligible. Such exercise shall becompleted within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarssTo 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0093 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., 'Agro House' Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032+2 CC to Mr.R.Singaravelan Advocate Sr.42932,42933+4 CC to Mr.R.Karthikeyan Advocate, Sr.43037,43038W.P.Nos.4204 of 2003 etc.CK (CO)BMD 09/09/2009