R. Muthukumar vs Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 135

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
R. Muthukumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144, 1145-1155, 1156-1179, 1180-1187, 1188-1214 of 2022, SLP (C) Nos. 15629-15639, 19059, 22036-22043, 22044-22067 of 2019, 3183-3209 of 2020
Decided On : 07-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia, Adv. Ms. Shruti Gupta, Adv. Mr S. Nagamuthu Sr. Adv, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Rajiv K Virmani, Adv. Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K S Govinda, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr.G Anandkumar, Adv.

Headnote:
Concession - Employment Dispute - S.L.P. No. 1820/1990, SLP (C) No. 3183-3209/2020 - 27.05.2009, 14.10.2015, 29.04.2019 - The court discussed the concession made by TANGEDCO to accommodate certain candidates and held that the compromise order was not based on the merits of the case and cannot be treated as a binding precedent. The court also emphasized that there is no negative equality and a wrong order cannot be perpetuated.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an employment dispute between TANGEDCO and aggrieved candidates who were not offered employment despite participating in the recruitment process. The candidates claimed that TANGEDCO acted unfairly and in a discriminatory manner by refusing to employ them.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise order was not based on the merits of the case and cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It held that there is no negative equality and a wrong order cannot be perpetuated.
Issues: The main issue was whether the aggrieved candidates were entitled to the benefit of parity based on a compromise order that was not based on the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the compromise order was not based on the merits of the case and cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It also held that there is no negative equality and a wrong order cannot be perpetuated.
Final Decision: The appeals of the aggrieved candidates were dismissed, and TANGEDCO's appeals were allowed. The court held that the compromise order was not based on the merits of the case and cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It also emphasized that there is no negative equality and a wrong order cannot be perpetuated.

ORDER :

1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for parties, these appeals were heard finally. The appellants (hereby also referred to as “the aggrieved candidates”) in four sets of appeals¹ [SLP (C) No. 19059/2019, SLP (C) No. 15629-15639/2019, SLP (C) No. 22044-22067/2019, SLP (C) No. 22036-22043/2019 - directed against a common judgment and order dated 02.08.2018 (in W.A. No. 574/2017, W.A. Nos. 1450/2017, 1452/2017 and 1454-1462/2017, W.P. Nos. 36656/2016, 36658/2016, 36890/2016, 42792- 42794/2016, 39782-39785/2016, 42613-42614/2016, 35135-35137/2016, 35926-35930/ 2016, 35932-35935/2016, W.A. Nos. 990/2016 and W.A. Nos. 1696-1702/2018, delivered by the Madras High Court] are aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated 02.08.2018 of Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In another appeal² [Arising from SLP (C) No. 3183-3209/2020 (directed) against a common judgment dated 29.04.2019 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1071, 1072 of 2016, Writ Petition Nos. 8150, 10266, 10267, 17997, 17998, 29113, 29114, 29115, 29116, 33743, 33744, 33745, 39292, 39673, 41609, 41610 of 2016 and Writ Petition Nos. 13948 13949, 13950, 13951, 13952, 13953, of 2017, Writ Petition Nos. 1808, 18576, 18624 of 2018] the management of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (hereafter “TANGEDCO”) is aggrieved by another judgment of the said High Court, whereby it was directed to appoint the respondents (writ petitioners who had approached the court, hereby called “respondent applicants”) as ITI Helpers based on a previous order dated 14.10.2015 in W.A. No. 81/2015.

Brief facts

2. In proceedings before this court³ [S.L.P. No. 1820/1990] orders were issued appointing late Mr. Justice Khalid, a former Judge of this court, to consider and recommend better methods for filling up of vacancies by accommodating existing workers on the one hand and skilled workers on the other. Justice Khalid’s report stated, inter-alia, that:

“110. How to select the remaining workers and where to place the ITI workers is the next question to be answered. Throughout my report, I have emphasized the fact that my function is to evolve a workable method to accommodate the existing workers without seriously affecting the Board's decisions and activities. It is not my intention to completely ignore the skilled helpers. They should find a place in the scheme of things. 7,000 ITI helpers have already been recruited. Others are waiting. The Supreme Court has appointed me to give a final decision which shall be binding on the parties. It is therefore necessary in the interests of fair play and justice that I take into account the claims of not only the existing workers but also the skilled workers who are not before me. After giving my anxious consideration, I decide that after the issue of appointment orders to 7,000 existing workers, the Board shall thereafter appoint the remaining existing workers from the lists and skilled workers in the ratios of 1:1. The existing workers will be selected by the Selection Committee and the ITI helpers by the Board.”

3. Acting in compliance with the report, TANGEDCO, by order dated 12.07.2012 called applications to fill up 4000 ITI Helper (Trainee) vacancies, by direct recruitment through Employment Exchange. A notification was sent to the Commissioner, Employment Exchange, Guindy, to sponsor ITI Candidates in each category, according to their ratio with the Trade of Electrician and Wireman in the ratio of 1:5. The proceeding dated 12.07.2012 reads, inter-alia, as follows:

(a) 4000 ITI Helper (Trainee) with NTC/NAC (ITI) qualification in the trade of Electrician and Wireman be appointed by Direct Recruitment through Employment Exchange, to minimize the large number of Helper vacancies in TANGEDCO. The 4000 ITI Helper (Trainee) will be given 2 years training with the consolidated pay of Rs. 3250/- per month and after completion of training they will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document