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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 913

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
S. Manickam
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others
W.A.No.3943 of 2004, 3947 of 2004 and 4176 of 2004
Decided On : 13-03-2007

For the Appellants :R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel, P. Srinivas, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1, P. Subramanian, Government Advocate, R2, A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel, M.R. Raghavan, R3, Karthik for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.

Employees are entitled to be absorbed with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but without back wages.

Headnote:Service Law - Absorption-Though lien is lost on transfer, since employees were transferred to Joint Venture company with assurance of same service conditions, protection and without any disadvantage , such employees are entitled to be absorbed with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but without back wages.

Judgment :-


Common Judgment:

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

These writ appeals are directed against the orders of the learned single Judge dated 26. 2004 and 16. 2004 made in W.P.Nos.3707 of 2001, 5743 of 1999 and 10336 of 1999 respectively, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeals are as follows.

(a) Appellants were appointed as Assistant Project Engineer (Mechanical), Junior Foreman (Mechanical) and Deputy Manager (Mechanical) respectively in the Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, the second respondent herein (hereinafter referred as TANMAG), which is a Company fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

(b) The TANMAG invited applications through paper advertisement and called for applications for the respective posts and the appellants applied for the same and they were selected and appointed by orders dated 19. 1983, 211. 1988 and 18. 1989 respectively by the TANMAG and the appellants joined duty in the respective posts.

(c) The appellants executed bonds to serve in TANMAG for a minimum period of three years. The TANMAG confirmed the services of the appellants through its proceedings dated 210. 1985, 30.4.1991 and 28. 1989 respectively.

(d) TANMAG was implementing the Rotary Kiln Project and the third respondent company was formed subsequently. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.41 Industries Department, dated 1. 1979 to implement the policy decision taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu to reserve the mineral prone areas of magnesite for state exploitation. The day-to-day affairs of the TANMAG was looked after by the Managing Director, appointed by the State Government and all the Board of Directors were also appointed by the State Government, apart from approving policy decisions taken from time to time. The appellants were paid the revised pay by the TANMAG as per the pay commission recommendations made by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

(e) In the year 1990, through G.O.Ms.No.855 Industries Department, dated 18. 1990 the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to implement the Chemical Beneficiation Project in Joint Venture with M/s. Kaitan Supermag Limited. TANMAG retained the overall control of the company, being the largest shareholder.

(f) The third respondent Company being a Joint Venture Company, TANMAG conveyed to the appellants that the cadre strength in TANMAG was surplus and therefore the appellants were called upon to express their willingness to work in the Joint Venture Company with the then existing pay and other facilities without any disadvantage. It was also mentioned in the said communication that if no option is given the appellants services will be terminated. After the prolonged correspondene, TANMAG agreed to transfer the appellants to the third respondent, without any monetary loss and alteration of service conditions with seniority and other benefits.

(g) In the year 1993, TANMAG transferred the mining lease held in its name to the third respondent for the purpose of raw material requirements. However, the third respondent was not able to mobilise sufficient funds for imlementing the Chemical Beneficiation Project in full and therefore the project become unremunerative and consequently the third respondent company decided to close down the implementation of the Chemical Beneficiation Project through G.O.Ms.No.140 Industries (MME2) Department, dated 15. 1998.

(h) The Government permitted the TANMAG to dispose of the equipments imported for the project and the Managing Director of TANMAG was requested to work out the modalities of the closure of the project including transfer of 47 acres of land made by TANMAG in favour of the third respondent. Further the appellants and others, who were transferred to the third respondent were not reverted back to TANMAG while resuming the land and machineries as stated supra. The apellants request to revert them to TANMAG has not been complied with and the 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