Madras High Court
S.Latha vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2022
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD).No.1614 of 2014
S.Latha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Pudukkottai.
2.The President,
TA 70, Manamelkudi Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited,
Manalmelkudi,
Manalmelkudi Post and Taluk,
Pudukkottai District-614 620.
3.The Special Officer, now transferred to
The Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Society,
Near Kamachiamman Temple,
Aranthangi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
first respondent relating to the award passed in I.D.No.73 of 2001 dated
30.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently directing the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all
other attendant benefits and secure the reinstatement of the petitioner in
the respondent's establishment with all consequential benefits the
petitioner entitled under law.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Babu
For R1 : Labour Court
For R2 & R3 : Mr.D.Sachi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as attender on daily wages in the
respondent establishment in a permanent post. The appointment was
made through Resolution No.5, dated 15.12.1998 of the Board of
Management. The petitioner’s employment was terminated from
15.07.2000 on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed by calling
the list from the employment exchange. The respondents did not issue
any notice before termination. The petitioner challenged the termination
order before the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide order dated
30.06.2008 has held the petitioner's appointment is in violation of
statutory rules since the list was not called for from the employment
exchange and the petitioner cannot claim any relief. Aggrieved over the
same, the petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging Labour
Court's order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
2. The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner
was an irregular appointee under Rule 149(2) of TNCS Rules, 1988. In
that Society should call for the list from the employment exchange and
thereafter, the eligible candidates should be appointed. Since the
petitioner was not called from the employment exchange, the petitioner is
not eligible for appointment and hence the petitioner’s service was
terminated.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Government
Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials on record.
4. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner’s name was
not called from Employment Exchange and hence the appointment is
illegal. Expect for the sole ground there is no other ground in the counter.
The petitioner has relied judgment rendered in W.P.No.21440 of 2015
dated 19.02.2021, where this court has held as under:
“16. This is an unfortunate case where luck has played its
part. The Government took a decision to regularise the
services of nearly 35,000 employees who were appointed in
various Co-operative Societies by drawing a cut-off dated as
12.03.2001 and out of the same, the lucky 26,000 employees
got their services regularised and the rest of the employees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
were facing the wrath of their destiny. They were eagerly
expecting their services to be regularised like that of the
similarly place employees but bad luck came in their. The
process of regularization was undertaken even for the
petitioners and due to various administrative delays, it did not
reach its logical end. By then there were huge shift in law with
regard to illegal and irregular appointments. …
“37.In view of the above discussion, all the Writ Petitions are
disposed of with the following directions:
a. All those Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case
may be who have at the time of their appointment, fulfilled
their educational qualification, who have been appointed in
a sanctioned post within the cadre strength, and are in
regular scale of pay, are declared to have satisfied the
substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule
149 (1) of the Rules;
b. The appointments not being sponsored by the employment
exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, will
only make the appointments irregular and no illegal;
c. All those Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case
may be who have fulfilled the criteria stipulated in Clause
(a), shall be regularised by the Respondents by issuing
appropriate proceedings within a period of 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order by taking the cut off-date
as 12.03.2001;
d. The regularization of service of the
Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case may be will
not entail them with any additional monetary beneifits
except the consequential benefit which flows from such
regularization; and
e.The benefit of regularization that is extended to the eligible
Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case may be shall
also be extended to all those employees who are similarly
placed even though they have not knocked the doors of this
Court.
Accordingly, the batch of writ Petitions are disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
5. This Court, admittedly, the petitioner is appointed on
15.12.1998 without calling for the list from the employment exchange.
There is no other violation and the petitioner is qualified to be appointed
to the said post. The society is having sanctioned post. This Court is of
the considered opinion, the petitioner is eligible for the benefit as stated
in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.21440 of 2015. Therefore, this Court
directs the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service. As far as
backwages is concerned the petitioner is entitled to 25% of back wages
for the period the petitioner has not worked. However, the petitioner is
entitled to service benefits for the entire period including the period the
petitioner has not worked.
6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
20.01.2022
sn
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Pudukkottai.
2.The President,
TA 70, Manamelkudi Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited,
Manalmelkudi,
Manalmelkudi Post and Taluk,
Pudukkottai District-614 620.
3.The Special Officer, now transferred to
The Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Society,
Near Kamachiamman Temple,
Aranthangi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
S.SRIMATHY, J.
sn
W.P(MD)No.1614 of 2014
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
