SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 1110

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Tamil Nadu Highways Roadways Employees Association - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamilnadu, rep.by its Secretary, Highways Department & Others - Respondents
W.P.NOS. 16128, 16129 OF 2003
Decided On : 08 September 2004

Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioners:R.Vaigai, Nalini Chidambaram, S.Silambanan, S.M.Subramaniam, M.Bharathi Mohan, S.Saravanavasan, M.Gnanasekar, M.Ravi, Arunachalam, P.Mani, R.Rengaramanujam, G.R.Swaminathan, S.Manikumar, M.Muthappan, V.Ravi, G.Elanchezhian, V.Illanchezhian, Advocates. For The Respondents:N.R.Chandran, Advocate General assisted by A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel, D.Krishnakumar, Spl.G.P.

Relief of reinstatement with backwages given to the employees whose & employment was terminated.

Headnote:Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Termination of employment of Gang mazdoors appointed by State Government for laying road and using tools-Held, order of termination whereby invalid and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act-Order of reinstatement with backwages of six months given.

Judgment :-

COMMON ORDER: F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the common order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 16.04.2003 in O.A.Nos.5028 of 2002 etc., wherein the State Administrative Tribunal, while upholding the abolition of Gang Mazdoors made under G.O.Ms.No.160 (Highways) dated 05.09.2002, directed the State Government to pay a sum equivalent to six months salary to each of the Gang Mazdoors, whether he had filed an Original Application before the Tribunal or not.

2. The petitioners were represented by different counsel, however main submissions were made by Ms.R.Vaigai, Ms.Nalini Chidambaram and Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, whose arguments were adopted by the other counsel appearing for various other petitioners. Submissions were made on behalf of the respondent State by the learned Advocate General, as well as Mr.A.L.Somayaji, the learned Senior counsel.

3. In order to resolve the controversy involved in these writ petitions, the facts which lead to the ultimate abolition of the posts of Gang Mazdoor is required to be stated:

(a) In the services of the State Government apart from the regular employees presently in the services of the State, either as permanent, or on temporary basis, persons were employed on temporary basis in the Work Charged Establishments for execution of specific works and projects. It is said that such employees used to be disbanded on the completion of the work for which they were recruited. It is also stated that even if some projects are completed, the personnel used to be engaged in some other projects and thereby the continuity of even such temporary engagement was continued.

(b) In the Work Charged Establishment also the employees were categorized into provincial and non-provincial. While the provincial employees were fitted in the time scale of pay, the non-provincial employees were paid some fixed pay. The above said practice was prevailing prior to the year 1977.

(c) In respect of such provincialised and non-provincialised Work Charged employees, there was a demand for extending various other benefits payable to government servants such as Leave, Retirement benefits etc., The State Government after considering the grievances expressed by certain associations representing such Work Charged employees came forward with G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 14.01.1997, in and by which all Work Charged employees who were in the pay scales of particular scale and above were brought to regular establishment and were allowed all the benefits that were payable to regular government servants.

(d) Similarly, non-provincialised Work Charged personnel on completion of five years of continuous service were also brought to the regular establishment. Simultaneously, the Government also revoked the power of Superintending Engineers in the P.W.D Highways and Rural Works Department to recruit employees for Work Charged establishments. In other words, the Government directed that the recruitment of Work Charged establishment should be stopped forthwith in all the Departments of the Government.

(e) Further the Heads of Departments were requested to submit necessary proposals to the Government for creation of adequate number of posts required for absorbing the existing non-provincialised Work Charged establishment presently who had by then completed five years of service as on 01.01.1977. Similar such directions were given to submit proposals for creation of adequate number of posts for absorbing the non-provincialised workers in the regular establishment as and when they complete five years of services on 1st January of the respective years.

(f) In G.O.Ms.No.406 (Transport) dated 23.02.1987, the State Government passed orders to the effect that 10,634 Gang Mazdoor posts should be created and such posts should be made permanent. However, in G.O.Ms.No.815 dated 05.06.1992, the State Government imposed a ban on filling up of the posts of Gang Mazdoors.

(g) In the year 1996, at the instance of t






































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top