Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN & M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
S. Valluvan
Versus
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director & Others
Writ Appeal Nos. 187 & 188 of 2011
Decided on : 12-04-2013
Delay and Laches - Employment Dispute - Old Service Rules, 1976, Fundamental Rules 83 and 83-A - The court discussed the application of the Old Service Rules, 1976, Fundamental Rules 83 and 83-A in the context of an employment dispute involving the rectification of an error by the employer. The court emphasized the principle of fairness in action by the employer and highlighted the employer's duty to act fairly and with high probity and candour to its employees. The court also discussed the concept of vested rights and the application of delay and laches in the context of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The second respondent, a 'Trainee Shift Engineer,' suffered a serious accident during employment, resulting in a permanent disability. The employer initially treated the absence as loss of pay due to non-regularization of service. Subsequently, the employer rectified the error and granted 'Special Disability Leave' without monetary benefit, affecting the seniority of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employer rightly rectified the error committed earlier and acted in accordance with the law. The court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the second respondent was entitled to the relief granted as per law, and there was no vested right accrued to the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the rectification of an error by the employer, the application of delay and laches, and the concept of vested rights in the context of an employment dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the employer to act fairly and with high probity and candour to its employees. The court also clarified the concept of vested rights and discussed the application of delay and laches in the context of the case.
Final Decision: The court held that the employer's rectification of the error was done in accordance with the law and that the appellant was not entitled to succeed in the writ appeals. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.
M.M. Sundresh, J.
1. These two writ appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the dismissal of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2443 and 10173 of 2009 respectively, by the learned single Judge, by way of a common order dated 28.01.2011.
2. The facts in brief:
2.1. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, the factual matrix surrounding the cases would require a proper and appropriate narration. The second respondent herein was appointed on 29.04.1980 along with the appellant as a "Trainee Shift Engineer" on a consolidated pay. He met with a serious accident during the course of employment on 16.05.1980, by which, half of his right foot and five toes were lost. He was admitted in the hospital on different dates and he was granted leave on loss of pay for those days he was absent in view of the accident. Unfortunately, as he was not regularised in service within two years from the date of the appointment, the leave was treated as loss of pay. The appellant was originally a junior to the second respondent. However, in view of the accident and the consequential decision of the first respondent in wrongly treating the leave period during the accident as loss of pay, the second respondent was placed below the appellant even though he was senior at the time of appointment. The seniority list was published on 23.04.1990, giving liberty to the employees to give objections, if any. The second respondent filed his objection, which was rejected on 26.02.1991.
2.2. During the time of accident, there was no specific provision for sanctioning of "Special Disability Leave". However, under Rule 14(1) of the Old Service Rules, 1976, Fundamental Rules 83 and 83-A were made applicable to an employee of the first respondent. Unfortunately, these rules were not followed by the first respondent earlier. In the year 1989, New Service Regulation came into force with effect from 27.06.1990. Accordingly, the second respondent, once again made a request to reconsider his request for treating his absence as "Special Disability leave". It was rejected on 04.08.2000 on the question of limitation as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thereafter, the second respondent was included in the panel of Assistant Engineer for the year 2005 and he was promoted accordingly with effect from 09.01.2006. The second respondent made a further appeal to the first respondent on 06.11.2008 to reconsider his request. He also submitted before the first respondent that he was ready and willing to forego the monetary benefits for the relevant period in the event of granting "Special Disability Leave". Considering the fact that the accident was said to have occurred during the course of employment and taking note of the relevant Rules, both under the old Service Rules, 1976, and subsequent Rules, the first respondent has passed appropriate orders. Accordingly, two orders have been passed. By the proceedings dated 03.01.2009, the absence of the second respondent during the accident and the treatment period was regularised as "Special Disability Leave" without monetary benefit. The same was also made to count for promotional benefits. Consequently, by the subsequent proceedings dated 30.05.2009, the first respondent revised the seniority of the second respondent and included his name in the panel of Manager(Engineering) for the year 2006, on par with his immediate junior with retrospective effect. The abovesaid proceedings have been passed in pursuant to the resolution of the Board of the first respondent.
2.3. In the mean while, the appellant was not included in the panel of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) for the year 2005 as he was facing charges. The punishment imposed on him on 19.10.2004 was set aside with 'severe warning' in by the proceedings dated 08.08.2006. The other major charges against the appellant were closed as exonerated by the proceedings dated 20.10.2005. Accordingly, he was once again included in the panel for th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
