Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
M. Rajan and others - Appellants
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas and others - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 299, 1289 and 1473 of 2010
Decided On : 20-11-2015
For the Appellant : R. Krishnaswamy and V. Ajoy Khose.
For the Respondent:G. Masilamani Advocate Counsel for M. Vijayan for King and Partridge.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 – Regularization of service - Petitioners, who were also engaged as Security Personnel by the respondent and they sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the General Manager of the respondent organisation and for a direction to regularise their services with effect with all consequential benefits -whether the appellants are back door entrants, whether they fulfilled the eligibility requirement of the post as per the Recruitment Rules of the respondent and whether they are identically and similarly placed as that of the workmen, who were granted relief by the Industrial Tribunal or questions of fact to be determined not for the High Court, but by the Tribunal – Held, decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of PCLU (supra), was rendered while testing the correctness of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal as affirmed by this Court. Therefore, the said decision cannot ipso facto apply to these facts of these case and no Writ of Mandamus, could be issued as prayed for by the appellants. Accordingly, Question No. 1 framed by us is answered against the appellants. In the light of the conclusion we have arrived at on Question No. 1, there would be no necessity to decide the second question as to whether the decision in the case of PCLU (supra), is obiter and not a binding precedent or to be considered as a judgment on the facts of the case, as we have concluded that the decision was rendered while examining the correctness of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal which was based on facts and circumstances and evidence placed before the Tribunal and not as one claimed by the appellants herein - Appellants have not made out any case for interference with the orders passed in the Writ Petitions – Hence dismissed
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
1. These Appeals are directed against the order dated 04.01.2010 in W.P. No. 7906 of 1999 and W.P. No. 870 of 2004, dated 23.02.2010.
2. W.A. Nos. 299 & 1473 of 2010 are against the same order in W.P. No. 7906 of 1999, dated 04.01.2010 and in W.A. No. 1473 of 2010, the Appellants are the petitioners 3, 5, 6, 13, 21, 22, 24, 28 in W.P. No. 7906 of 1999, and in W.A. No. 299 of 2010, the Appellants are the petitioners 1, 7 to 12, 15 to 17, 19, 20, 23, 25 to 27. The issue involved in all these Appeals are common, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. W.P. No. 7906 of 1999 was filed by 28 Security Guards, who have been engaged by the respondent and they sought for a direction to regularise their services on completion of two years of service and for payment of consequential monetary benefits.
4. W.P. No. 870 of 2004 was filed by the 27 petitioners, who were also engaged as Security Personnel by the respondent and they sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 24.03.2003, passed by the General Manager of the respondent organisation and for a direction to regularise their services with effect from 13.01.1988 with all consequential benefits. By the order impugned in the said Writ Petition, the respondent rejected the demand made by the petitioners for regularisation of their services. Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed primarily on the ground that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. W.P. No. 7906 of 1999 was also dismissed on the same lines, however, the Court observed that it is open to the petitioners therein to approach the statutory Authorities to redress their grievances.
5. The case of the appellants in W.A. Nos. 299 & 1473 of 2010, arising out of the order passed in W.P. No. 7906 of 1999 is that the respondent has been engaging them directly for more than a decade as Security Guards without regularising their services. The appellants are stated to be engaged as Security Guards at the Regional Office, Chennai, Harbour Stores inside Chennai Port, Madhavaram Tape Library and residences of the Regional Director, Deputy General Manager (Security) and General Manager (Security) and Stores at Kumbakonam. It is submitted that totally there are 64 term based Security Guards including the appellants, in the Southern Region of which 45 employees are in Chennai. The appellants were initially employed through a private contractor and after contract labour system was abolished, the respondent continued to engage the contract labour through the agency called 'Priyadarshini Indira Gandhi Co-operative Labour Contract and Society'. At that juncture, a Writ Petition was filed by an Employees Union in W.P. No. 7651 of 1986 for regularisation of contract labourers. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn in the light of a settlement, dated 16.12.1986, providing for engagement of contract labourers through a co-operative society and thereafter the said organisation was registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1993. During 1987, the respondent decided to utilize the services of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which was challenged by the Employees Union in W.P. No. 9688 of 1987, stating that having agreed to engage the services of the appellants through a co-operative society, the respondent should not employ CISF personnel. Further relief of absorption as permanent employees was also sought for. The said Writ Petition was dismissed. The appellants contended that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. Vs. United Labour Union and others [overruled], (1997) 9 SCC 377, erst while contract labourers should not be placed in a worse position of losing their em
