Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Palaniyammal & Anr. – Petitioners
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department – Respondent
W.P.Nos.20496 of 2013 and 23804 of 2013 and Cont.P.No.1008 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.20496 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.23804 of 2013
Decided on : 16-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.V.Raghavachari all these petitions
For the Respondents:Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Special Govt. Pleader, for respondents in W.P.No.2049 and Cont.P.No.1008 of 2014 and
Mr.P.H. Aravind Pandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Digvijay Pandian, Mr.D.Nagasaila, Amicus Curiae
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Section 9-A - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 12 – Admission - Interim order of injunction - Amicus Curiae - Rendering service - Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that salary was given by way of cheque for every month in name of Women Self-Help Group and petitioners who belong to said Self Help Group may get same without prejudice to their contentions in these writ petitions that they are direct employees of second respondent Town Panchayat - In those court passed the order permitting the petitioners to en cash cheque without prejudice to their contentions in these writ petitions - It is useful to extract said order - Held, This Court noted that a direction was issued to learned counsel for petitioner therein to produce any proof to show that petitioner therein had worked earlier with Town Panchayat directly prior to contract engagement through Self Help Group - But learned counsel was unable to produce any proof showing that he was actually engaged by town panchayat directly before contractual engagement through Self Help Group - In those circumstances claim for regularization of petitioner therein in service of Town Panchayat therein was declined - Therefore court am of view that if petitioner therein was able to establish that he was directly employed before being engaged on contract basis this Court could have issued a direction for regularization - At this juncture it is useful to extract following passage in of order - Petition is also closed.
Since the common question has arisen for consideration in both these writ petitions, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.20496 of 2013 are Sanitary Workers employed in the second respondent Town Panchayat. The petitioners in W.P.No.23804 of 2013 are also Sanitary Workers in the second respondent Town Panchayat. In total, there are eleven Sanitary Workers all belonging to Scheduled Caste community.
3. According to them, they are in service from 2006 onwards as Sanitary Workers in the second respondent Town Panchayat. Their grievance is that they are daily rated monthly paid employees and they are not brought to regular time scale of pay, though they rendered long years of service. Hence, they filed these writ petitions seeking regularization and they relied on G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997.
4. When W.P.No.20496 of 2013 was admitted, this Court granted interim injunction on 25.07.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.20496 of 2013, restraining the respondents from interfering with the service of the petitioners as Sanitary Workers pending disposal of the writ petition.
5. Similar injunction was granted by this Court on 29.08.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013, when W.P.No.23804 of 2013 was admitted.
6. The petitioners complained that after obtaining injunction order, the salary was stopped and they were rendering service without getting salary. Hence, the petitioners in W.P.No.20496 of 2013 filed Cont.P.No.1008 of 2014 complaining that the order dated 25.08.2013 granting injunction was deliberately disobeyed, since salary was not paid to them.
7. Hence, M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 in W.P.Nos.20496 and 23804 of 2013 were taken up for hearing on 23.12.2014 and the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the salary was given by way of cheque for every month in the name of Vaadamalli Women Self-Help Group and the petitioners, who belong to the said Self Help Group, may get the same without prejudice to their contentions in these writ petitions that they are direct employees of the second respondent Town Panchayat. In those circumstances, I passed the order 23.12.2014 permitting the petitioners to encash the cheque without prejudice to their contentions in these writ petitions. It is useful to extract paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said order :
“3. It is an admitted fact that the works are carried out by the petitioners. The dispute is that the petitioners claim that they are directly employed by the second respondent Town Panchayat and the Town Panchayat states that these persons are employed through the Self Help Group.
4. All those issues could be resolved at the time of final disposal of the writ petitions. But the petitioners, who are doing work shall be paid salary. If the second respondent Town Panchayat has made payment to the Self Help Group, the same may be received and the petitioners could divide the amount as per the work carried out by them without prejudice to their contentions that they are directly employed by the Town Panchayat. The receipt of cheque after a particular point of time through the Self Help Group could not determine the issues raised in these writ petitions. Hence, there cannot be any apprehension in this regard.
5. In these circumstances, the petitioners are directed to encash the cheques issued towards salary that were issued in the name of the Self Help Group without prejudice to their contentions in these writ petitions and if the cheques have become time barred, the same may be returned to the second respondent Town Panchayat and on such return, the second respondent Town Panchayat shall revalidate the same and issue fresh cheques within a period of one week thereafter.”
8. While so, counter-affidavits were filed in both the writ petitions. The crux of the counter-affidavits is that the petitioners were not directly employed by the second respondent and there was no employer-employee relatio
