Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1842
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
R. Revathy Thomas
Versus
The Industries Commissioner Director Of Industries And Commerce & Another
Writ Petition No.24753 of 2011
Decided on : 04-2012
the Petitioner:T. Mohan for M. Ravi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 - P. Kavitha, Government Advocate, R2 -L.P. hanmugasundaram, Advocate.
The central legal point established is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice in employment disputes, especially when modifying service benefits.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Employment Dispute - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - 31.12.2008 - 26.8.2011 - 5.9.2011 - 10.9.2011
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a chemist, challenged the second respondent's decision to fix her pay at a lower rate and appoint her on a contract basis, contrary to the first respondent's earlier direction to regularize her service and grant her benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent's actions were in violation of natural justice and set aside the impugned proceedings, while allowing the respondents to modify or revoke the earlier direction after giving the petitioner a personal hearing.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, regularisation of service, and grant of service benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second respondent's actions, based on the first respondent's direction, were only consequential and violated natural justice by modifying the petitioner's service benefits without a personal hearing.
Final Decision: The impugned proceedings of the second respondent were set aside, allowing the respondents to modify or revoke the earlier direction after giving the petitioner a personal hearing.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed, as a Junior Chemist, in the second respondent society, on 2.7.1982. Later, she had been promoted, as an Assistant Chemist, during the year, 1992, and thereafter, promoted as a Senior Chemist. While so, she had resigned from service, due to the untimely demise of her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner had rejoined in service, as a Senior Chemist, in the second respondent society, in the year, 2002, based on the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.6.2002. By the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 6.6.2005, the petitioner had been granted the time scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000, along with the usual allowances. The individual pay of the petitioner had been fixed at Rs.6,725/-, with effect from 1.1.2005. While so, in the month of December, 2002, the petitioner had been posted, as a Senior Chemist, in the Coonoor Branch of the second respondent Society. On 9.7.2008, the petitioner had made a detailed representation seeking fixation of her scale of pay, taking into consideration of her past services rendered in the second respondent society. By the proceedings, dated 12.7.2008, the second respondent had informed the petitioner that the Commissioner of Industries and Director of Industries and Commerce had, by his proceedings, dated 24.1.2008, had informed that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular and that she has to be terminated from service. However, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 26.3.2008 and 23.5.2008, had brought to the notice of the first respondent the necessity of the petitioner in continuing in service. It had also been informed that the appropriate directions would be issued to regularise the service of the petitioner, at the appropriate time.
3. It has also been stated that the second respondent had informed the petitioner that appropriate action would be taken to grant the annual increments only after the service of the petitioner had been regularised. It had also been stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 2.9.2008, to the first respondent, for getting the service benefits, which were being granted to the other employees of the second respondent society. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 31.12.2008, regularising the service of the petitioner and for granting other service benefits and privileges. While so, the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 26.8.2011, stating that a sum of Rs.13,000/-had been fixed, as the consolidated pay of the petitioner, per month, and that her appointment in service would be on contract basis, for one year, from 26.6.2011 to 25.6.2012. Thereafter, consequential proceedings had also been issued, on 5.9.2011 and 10.9.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings, dated 26.8.2011, had been issued by the second respondent, contrary to the proceedings, dated dated 31.12.2008, issued by the first respondent, without any notice having been issued and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It had also been stated that the consequential proceedings, dated 5.9.2011 and 10.9.2011, had also been issued, pursuant to the proceedings, dated 26.8.2011.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent are illegal, as they have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 31.12.2008, directing the second respondent to san
