Madras High Court
S.Balachandar vs The Chairman on 29 August, 2023
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
and CMP Nos.16756, 16745, 16664, 16658 and 16669 of 2021
S.Balachandar ... Appellant in W.A.No.548/2019
G.Taitus ... Appellant in W.A.No.549/2019
S.Vijay ... Appellant in W.A.No.550/2019
A.Arulanandhaiya ... Appellant in W.A.No.609/2019
M.Murugesan ... Appellant in W.A.No.616/2019
-Vs-
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity and
Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity and
Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer (TEDC)
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity and
Distribution Corporation, No.1, Vallam Road
Thanjavur - 613 007.
4. The Executive Engineer (Urban) (TEDC)
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity and
Distribution Corporation, Collector Office Road
Thanjavur - 613 007.
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M)
RGGVY / TEDC, TANGEDCO, No.1, Vallam Road
Thanjavur - 613 007. ... Respondents in all W.As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
Common Prayer : Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order in W.P.Nos.18272, 18686, 18271, 18270 and 18687 of 2016 dated
27.07.2018.
In all W.As.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.,
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
Since the issue raised in these appeals is one and the same and arising out of
the common order passed by the writ Court in the respective writ petitions by order
dated 27.07.2018, with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, these writ
appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants herein were the writ petitioners, whose case before the Writ
Court was that they had been engaged by the respondent TANGEDCO through the
contractor as contract workers after 05.01.1998 on various dates and they had been
continuously engaged accordingly for several years and therefore they were entitled
to get absorption.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
3. In this context, the further contention of the appellants was that the
similarly placed contract workers had been considered after a Section 12(3)
Settlement of Industrial Disputes Act between the TANGEDCO and the employees,
based on which those employees had been absorbed.
4. Insofar as these employees are concerned, even though according to them
they are similarly placed to that of those employees, who have been absorbed
covered under the Section 12(3) Settlement, since the ex-gratia payment for which
the 12(3) Settlement also recommended had not been paid or these contract
employees have not been included in the list of employees to be paid the ex-gratia
payment and consequently for absorption, they made a representation to the
TANGEDCO which was not considered and hence they approached the writ Court
and filed writ petitions.
5. The writ Court having heard both parties was not inclined to entertain the
writ petitions and the same were dismissed by the order impugned dated 27.07.2018
stating that such a plea made by the appellants / contract workers seeking
absorption is against the relevant service regulations or rules, which are in vogue
and therefore the learned Judge who decided the writ petitions was pleased to
dismiss those cases. That is how these appeals were directed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
6. Heard Mr.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Anand
Gopalan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent TANGEDCO.
7. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for both sides that, insofar
as those employees / contract workers who had been absorbed earlier is concerned,
those employees were covered under the 12(3) Settlement dated 10.08.2007 and if
any other employees like the present appellants were not covered under the 12(3)
Settlement, since such kind of employees had made consistent plea before the
TANGEDCO in order to consider their cases, after verification of the claim made by
them, they are also entitled to get absorption as per the 12(3) Settlement dated
10.08.2007, TANGEDCO decided to constitute a Committee for which B.P.No.9 dated
09.01.2008 was issued, under which a Committee has been constituted consisting of
the following members.
i. Member (Accounts)
ii. Member (Distribution)
iii. Secretary
iv. Chief Engineer (Personnel)
v. Senior Personnel Officer (Labour)
8. As per the said Board Proceedings, terms of reference for the decision to
be made by the Committee also had been given. The terms of reference from (a) to
(i) have been referred to the Committee, out of which reference (c) speaks about to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
examine the claims of the contract labourers, who were engaged after 05.01.1998
for ex-gratia and for absorption. Therefore, under the said reference (c), the claim
made by these appellants ought to have been considered and a decision ought to
have been made by the Committee.
9. However, according to the learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO, they
have not been considered either for the reason that they have not appeared before
the Committee or on appearance there has been no materials to accept the plea of
the petitioners.
10. However, the learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners would
submit that no such opportunity for appearing before the Committee was given to
them and therefore there had been no occasion for the Committee to verify the
veracity of the claim made by these appellants as to whether they are entitled to get
ex-gratia and for consequential absorption.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side and have perused the materials placed on record.
12. The admitted fact is that there has been a Committee constituted by
virtue of issuance of B.P.No.9 and terms of reference have been given to the
Committee to look into the same, out of which one of the references is to examine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
the claims of the contract workers / labourers who were engaged after 05.01.1998
for ex-gratia payment or absorption and the Committee can look into the individual
plea made by the contract labourers.
13. When that being the position, there could be no impediment for the
appellants to appear before the Committee. The Committee is still in force according
to the learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDcO and if they appear before the
Committee and make a plea before the Committee by placing supporting documents,
that can very well be considered by the Committee and a final decision can be made,
based on which further course of action with regard to the payment of ex-gratia or
for absorption can be taken by the respondent TANGEDCO.
14. In that view of the matter, we feel that since the judgment which is
impugned herein without giving such an opportunity to the petitioners / appellants to
appear before the Committee and without giving any direction to look into the plea
of the petitioners / appellants in terms of B.P.No.9 dated 09.01.2008, where a
Committee was constituted and references were made was passed, the impugned
order passed by the writ Court is liable to be interfered with the following directions:
(a) That the impugned order dated 27.07.2018 made in
W.P.Nos.18272, 18686, 18271, 18270 and 18687 of 2016 is
set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
(b) As a sequel, there shall be a direction to the appellants /
petitioners to make a representation to appear before the
Committee constituted by the respondent TANGEDCO under
B.P.No.9 of 09.01.2008 within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(c) On receipt of the representation from the appellants /
petitioners, the Committee shall examine the same and give
a date for personal hearing and that shall be intimated in
advance ie., at least one week prior to the date to be fixed
in this regard, to the appellants / petitioners.
(d) On receipt of such a communication from the Committee,
the appellants shall appear before the Committee on the
date to be fixed in this regard and make their plea with
supporting documents.
(e) After hearing the appellants / petitioners and going through
the documents to be filed in support of their claim seeking
the benefit of ex-gratia payment as well as absorption as
has been extended to various other contract employees /
labourers similarly placed to that of the appellants /
petitioners as covered under the 12(3) Settlement dated
10.08.2007, a reasoned order on merits shall be passed by
the Committee and the same shall be forwarded to the
TANGEDCO with a copy to be given to these appellants /
petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
(f) Based on such an order or report to be submitted by the
Committee, the respondent TANGEDCO shall pass final
orders with regard to the plea of the appellants / petitioners
thereafter within a period of eight weeks.
15. With the above directions, these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.K.,J..) (K.B.,J.)
29.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
Note : Issue order copy on 31.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.548, 549, 550, 609 and 616 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
KST
W.A.Nos. 548, 549, 550,
609 and 616 of 2019
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
