1999 Supreme(Mad) 879
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Thiruvalluvar Pokkuvarathu Kazhaka Anna Sumai Thookuvar Pothu Nala Sangam, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
State Express Transport Corporation and Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 14169/1999 and W.M.P. Nos. 20442 and 20443/1990
Decided On : 27 August 1999
E. PADMANABHAN, J.
The Petitioner-Sangam, claiming to be a registered Society had prayed for the issue of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with proceedings No. 38173/E1/A/V/Poka/99 dated May 21, 1999 passed by the first respondent and quash the relevant rules in so far as it transfers the duty of weighing from Porter Workers to the conducts and further direct the respondent Corporation to regularise the services of all their workmen from the date of completion of 480 days of service as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
Heard Mr. K. Chandru, Senior counsel appearing for Mr. P. M. Subramaniam for the Writ Petitioner Sangam. According to the petitioner-Sangam, the first respondent-Corporation was previously known as the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation. In all the respondent-Transport Corporation namely at Trichi, Madurai, Tirunelveli, Coimbatore and Bangalore Bus Stands there were about 180 porters who were employed by the respondent-Corporation from June 5, 1967, the date of establishment of the said Corporation. The details of persons have been set out in the annexure of the affidavit.
It is also the case of the petitioners that to begin with the first respondent received Rs. 510 as caution deposit from the individual Porters and they were allowed to work as authorised Porters. Each of the authorised Porters was asked to pay licence fee of Rs. 10/- which licence is subject to renewal annually. Each Porter was given a specific authorisation authorising the individual Porter to work freely without any hindrance. All the Porters were given Identity Cards. Each Porter had to wear a Green Over Shirt. Otherwise, they will not be allowed to work as Porters. According to the petitioner a separate staff was appointed as Duty Officer who will allot Porters for each shift. The system of porting the luggage was duly notified to the public. The rate for luggage was notified.It is the further case of the petitioner-Sangam that the passengers have been informed to make a complaint against the Porters in case of any violation of the rules. According to the petitioner-Sangam, they have been making demands to absorb the Porters as permanent employees and also demanding for payment of Dearness Allowance, Gratuity, Bonus and Earned Leave etc. It is the further case of the writ petitioner-Sangam that all the Porters have put in more than 480 days of service in 24 calendar months and they are entitled for permanency under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
It is claimed by the petitioner-Sangam that many of the members have put in continuous service from 1967 and therefore they should have been placed on a time scale of pay for the work done by them. It is also pointed out that the nature of work is perennial in nature and any private employment by a Porter or any other system by directly dealing with the passengers would unduly harass the passengers. The petitioners have given the break up particulars of various porters in para 5 of the affidavit at various places or terminals.
It is also claimed by the petitioner that the Porters are being paid specific wages and the rate of wages are being fixed by the Corporation. The petitioners claimed that their services should be regularised and they should be absorbed in the services of the respondent-Corporation. While so, the respondent-Corporation has issued rules of tariff for luggage on May 21, 1999 and fixed tariff for rates for each and every item of luggage likely to be taken by the passengers and the same has been with a view to introduce improvement by adopting new standardisation in the existing system of loading and unloading the luggage. The said proceeding was approved by the Board of Directors on March 19, 1999 which has to be effective from August 1, 1999.It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent-Corporation has no power or authority