Tamil Nadu State Retired Transport Employees Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Feb 2008
- Bench
- K CHANDRU
Outcome
Dismissed
In this view of the matter, without going into the merits ofthe case, the Writ petition is dismissed on the ground ofmaintainability
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. Tamil Nadu State Transportcorporation Employees PensionFund Trust, rep. by its Administrator,'Thiruvalluvar House',Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 010.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for all connected and relevant records relating…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 25.02.2008Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K.MISRAandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUWrit Petition No.47892 of 2006 Tamil Nadu State Retired TransportEmployees Associationrep. by its General Secretary,43, Rosary Church Road, Chennai-4.... Petitionervs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretaryto Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
The Metropolitan TransportCorporation Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.
The Tamil Nadu StateExpress Transport corporation Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.
The Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Villupuram Limited, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rep. by its Managing Director, Villupuram.
The Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Salem Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Director, Salem.
The Tamil Nadu StateTransport CorporationCoimbatore Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Director, Coimbatore.
The Tamil Nadu StateTransport CorporationMadurai Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai.
The Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Kumbakonam, Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.
Tamil Nadu State Transportcorporation Employees PensionFund Trust, rep. by its Administrator,'Thiruvalluvar House',Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 010.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for all connected and relevant records relating to G.O. (Ms) No.135, Transport(D) Department, dated 15.12.2000 approving the Tamil Nadu TransportCorporation Employees Pension Fund Rules and the G.O. (Ms) No.92,Transport Department dated 24.08.2001 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the last sentence of Rule 2 (11) and Rule 14(b) of the saidRules and direct the respondents to pay pension to the retired employees of the Transport Corporations/R-3 to R-9, taking into account exclusively their corporation service alone. For Petitioner: Mr.D.SadasivanFor R1 to R4 & R6 to R10: Ms.Geetha ThamaraiselvanFor R-5: Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special G.P. (HR & CE)- - - - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T (Delivered by K.CHANDRU, J.)Originally, this Writ Petition was posted before a Division Benchalong with Writ Appeal Nos.111 to 113 of 2007.
However, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, it was de-linked and it came to be posted before this Court.2. When the matter was taken up to-day, Mr.D.Sadhasivan, learned counsel for the petitioner, was asked as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner/Association, which is nota 'Registered body'. In paragraph No.1 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, except for stating that the petitioner/Associationis affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Retired Officials Association, which is recognized by the State Government, nothing else is mentioned. Even the details relating to members of the Association have not been furnished. 3. Learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner/Associationis not a registered body either under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The recognition in respect of Tamil Nadu Retired Officials Association to which thepetitioner/Association claims to have been affiliated to, has been granted by the Government only in terms of Rule 16 of the Tamil NaduGovernment Servant Conduct Rules and that cannot confer upon thepetitioner/Association the status of a Registered Body so as to file anyWrit Petition.4.
In fact, a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported inAIR 1989 Madras 224 (Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers'Association, Madras vs. Government of Tamil Nadu) has emphatically held that writ petition by an unregistered body is not maintainable. 5. The very same issue was considered by M.Srinivasan, J. (as Hethen was) in All India Lawyers' Union Vs. Union of India (1992 (2) LW577), wherein, the scope of recognition granted under Rule 16 was elaborately discussed and following the above referred Full BenchJudgment, it was held that the Government granting recognition in terms of Rule-16 is only to enable the party/Association to maintain correspondence with the Government or to move the AdministrativeTribunal, but, that will not enure to the benefit of an Association like the petitioner in maintaining the writ petition as it is an unregistered body. 6. The same view was also followed by this Court in Tamil NaduGovernment Office Assistants & Basic Servants Association vs. DistrictCollector, Dindigul (2007 (4) CTC 683). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
7. The Supreme Court, in B.Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka UrbanWater Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association (2006 (11) SCC 731(II)), had an occasion to consider whether an unregistered Union can maintain Writ Petition . The following passage found in paragraph Nos.38& 39 of the judgment is of much relevance and the same is quoted here-under:- " 38. ..... In our opinion, the High Courtgravely erred in refusing to examine the question of locus standi on the ground that it is decided in the earlier writ petition which operates as res judicataand that the petitioners even otherwise have locusstandi. Chapter III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 sets out rights and liabilities of the registered trade unions. Under the said enactment, an unregistered trade union or a trade union whose registration has been cancelled has no manner of right whatsoever, eventhe rights available under the ID Act have been limited only to those trade unions which are registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 by insertion of clause 2(qq)in the ID Act w.e.f.
Operative part
21-8-1984 defining a trade union to mean a trade union registered under the Trade UnionsAct, 1926. 39. The High Court, in our opinion, miserably failed and gravely erred in holding that Respondents 1and 2 have locus standi to question the appointment of the appellant in the light of the change of law that has been brought about by insertion of Section 2(qq) of the ID Act and having regard to the provisions of Chapter III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. ....."8. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not a registered body and the details of its members having not been disclosed, we are of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 9. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarJI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Chennai 600 009.2.
The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.3. The Managing Director, Metropolitan TransportCorporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.4. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transportcorporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2.5. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Villupuram Limited, Villupuram.6. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Salem Ltd., Salem.7. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore.8. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation Madurai Limited, Madurai.9. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Kumbakonam, Kumbakonam.10. The Administrator, "Tiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-10. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust.1 cc to Mr.D.Sadhasivan, Advocate, SR.No.99731 cc to Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR.No.102641 cc to Government Pleader SR No.10149.SKD (CO)MMP 11.3.08W.P. No.47892/06.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In this view of the matter, without going into the merits ofthe case, the Writ petition is dismissed on the ground ofmaintainability
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Trade Unions Act, 1926; Registration Act, 1908; III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(qq).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 25 Feb 2008. The bench was K CHANDRU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.