R. Raju v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.7.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.44522 of 2002R.Raju. ... Petitioner vs.1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chennai-600 010.2.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Dharmapuri, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri-636 705. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling forrecords of the respondents pursuant to the proceedings inNa.Ka.20424/93/,5 dated 23.2.2001 in so far as it restricts theright of the petitioner and direct the respondents to regularise thepetitioner's service from 23.1.1992 and consequently pay themonetary benefits from 23.1.1992.For Petitioner : Mr.Venkatesan for Mr.M.SelvamFor Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj -----O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the respondentspursuant to the proceedings in Na.Ka.20424/93/,5 dated 23.2.2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ insofar as it restricts the right of the petitioner and direct therespondents to regularise the petitioner's service from 23.1.1992and consequently pay the monetary benefits from 23.1.1992.2. Petitioner joined the services of the respondent CivilSupplies Corporation as trainee Bill Clerk on 1.11.1978. On12.5.1981, he was issued with a show-cause notice on the allegationthat he was responsible for transport of essential commodities to aplace other than the retail outlet. In response, petitionersubmitted a reply dated 21.5.1981. According to the petitioner, noenquiry was conducted. The management, however, examined somewitnesses and the enquiry officer came to hold that the charges wereproved. A second show-cause notice was issued on 9.8.1991 callingupon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removedfrom service. Petitioner gave a reply on 3.9.1981 which wasrejected and the petitioner was removed from service on 29.10.1981.Petitioner, thereafter, has raised an industrial dispute against theorder of termination in I.D.No.170 of 1983. The Industrial Tribunalby award dated 23.1.1992 set aside the order of the respondentmanagement removing the petitioner from service. The IndustrialTribunal while setting aside the order of removal from service,specifically ordered that the petitioner will be reinstated withoutbackwages and without continuity of service. Respondent management,thereafter, filed Writ Petition No.2835 of 1993 challenging theaward of the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court by order dated1.2.2000 dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the award/orderof the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter, based on instruction byway of fax message issued on 23.2.2001 by the head office, thesecond respondent Regional Manager passed the impugned order dated23.2.2001. Such order is challenged in the present writ petition.The substance of the order which is under challenge, viz.,Na.Ka.20424/93/,5 dated 23.2.2001 is as follows:(i) The High Court has directed that the petitioner should bereinstated without backwages and without continuity of service.(ii) The head office in its fax message dated 23.2.2001, hasdirected that the petitioner should be appointed as a watchman.(iii) In view of the above, the petitioner, formerly trainee billclerk, is appointed as a watchman in the scale of pay ofRs.2,550-55-2660-60-3200.(iv) On and from the date of joining duty, the petitioner will betreated as fresh appointee and he will not be entitled to anybackwages or continuity of service.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be reinstated as per the award of the Tribunal dated 23.1.1992. Therelief of continuity of service and backwages was denied by theTribunal and that alone can be denied. On the contrary, therespondents have proceeded on the basis that the reinstatement isordered by the High Court without backwages and without continuityof service. This is apparently is on a misreading of the order ofthe High Court. 4. The respondent management is bound by the order of theTribunal and cannot appoint the petitioner in some other post. Thisis in violation of the order of the Tribunal which has beenconfirmed by this Court. The condition imposed that the petitionerwill be treated as fresh appointee also is contrary to the award ofthe Industrial Tribunal and confirmed by this court. On thisground, the impugned order is challenged and it is justified.5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondentstating that on the basis of the order of this court dated 1.2.2000dismissing the management's writ petition and also on the basis ofthe representation made by the petitioner, respondent civilsupplies corporation issued the impugned order dated 23.2.2001reinstating the petitioner in service. It is stated in theimpugned order that the petitioner is not entitled to claimbackwages for the period after the date of award since the awardclearly states that the petitioner should be reinstated withoutbackwages and continuity of service. Except stating as above, noother reason is given in the counter-affidavit. In effect therespondents have not denied the various contentions raised by thepetitioner in the writ petition. Except narrating the factsleading to the initiation of departmental proceedings, resulting inthe order of termination and reinstatement by the IndustrialTribunal, the respondents have not shown any good reason as to howthe impugned proceedings dated 23.2.2001 can be sustained in law. 6. As far as the first part of the impugned order isconcerned, the respondents have erroneously come to conclusion thatthe reinstatement has been ordered by this Court without backwagesand without continuity of service. This is an error apparent on theface of record. Such order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on23.1.1992 and that has been confirmed by this Court. Thepetitioner is entitled to future benefit on reinstatement on or fromthe date of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, viz., 23.1.1992.He is not entitled to backwages or continuity of service for theperiod prior to the award (i.e.), 23.1.1992. The respondents on theother hand contend that the petitioner will not be entitled tobackwages and continuity of service prior to 23.2.2001, on whichdate this court dismissed the writ petition confirming the award ofthe Tribunal. The impugned proceedings was passed after nearly nineyears from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal and it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not the fault of the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to thebenefit of the award of the Tribunal confirmed by this Court. Therespondents are, therefore, not justified in denying the backwagesand continuity of service on and from 23.1.1992 (i.e.) the date ofthe award of the Tribunal. 7. In so far as the appointment of the petitioner as watchmanis concerned, it is admitted case of the respondents that thepetitioner was appointed as a trainee bill clerk/sales assistant andtherefore, based on a fax message from the head office, thepetitioner cannot be appointed as a watchman. No rule or provisionof law has been shown as to how the petitioner can be appointed aswatchman. The reinstatement order of the Tribunal is in relation tothe work performed by the petitioner at the time of institution ofdisciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the appointment of thepetitioner as a watchman is erroneous and bad. 8. The impugned order treats the petitioner as a watchman on aparticular scale of pay and he is stated to be a fresh appointee.This is also contrary to the order of the Tribunal as confirmed bythis court. 9. Petitioner was already in service from 1.11.1978 and theshow-cause notice was issued on 12.5.1981. Petitioner will beentitled to the benefit of the order of the Tribunal and he shouldbe reinstated in the same post held at the time of termination. Therespondents cannot treat the petitioner as a fresh appointee. Norule or provision of law has been shown as to how the petitionershould be treated as a fresh appointee. Therefore, the entireproceedings dated 23.2.2001 which is under challenge suffers fromarbitrary and capricious exercise of power by the respondentauthority. Respondents have erroneously denied the benefits thathas accrued to the petitioner consequent to the order of theTribunal which has been confirmed by this Court. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Thepetitioner is entitled to reinstatement based on the award of theTribunal dated 23.1.1992 in I.D.No.170 of 1983. Petitioner isentitled to all the benefits on and from the date of the award ofthe Tribunal. 11. The impugned proceedings of the respondent Civil SuppliesCorporation on the face of it is without application of mindtreating the claim of the petitioner casually and without goinginto the merits of the award of the Tribunal and the order of thiscourt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. This court was inclined to impose cost. However, learnedcounsel for the respondents made an earnest plea that immediately onreceipt of a copy of the order of this Court, the respondents willtake steps to implement the order and therefore, no cost should beimposed. Considering the said submission, there shall be no orderas to costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar tsTo 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chennai-600 010.2.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Dharmapuri, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri-636 705. +1cc to Mr.V.Selvaraj,Advocate Sr 34132+1cc to Mr.M.Selvam, Advocate Sr 33714KM(CO)km/6.8. W.P.No.44522 of 2002