Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Gnanavel – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Represented by the Chairman, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 374 of 2017
Decided on : 07-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Suresh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Anand Gopalan, M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., J. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader.
Appointments made in violation of recruitment rules cannot be regularized and must be made under the constitutional scheme, following the rule of reservations and ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Implementation of Permanent Status Order - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and the service regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, emphasizing the precedence of the board's regulations over general laws. The court also referred to the Division Bench judgment in L.Justine Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, highlighting the legal principles that appointments made in violation of recruitment rules cannot be regularized. The court emphasized the need for appointments to be made under the constitutional scheme, following the rule of reservations and ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contract laborer at the Electricity Board, sought permanent status after completing 480 days of service. The Board disputed the claim, citing its service regulations and the inapplicability of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking implementation of the Inspector of Labour's order granting permanent status.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches, emphasizing the need for appointments to be made under the constitutional scheme, following the rule of reservations and ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, the precedence of the Electricity Board's service regulations, and the delay in seeking implementation of the permanent status order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that appointments made in violation of recruitment rules cannot be regularized and must be made under the constitutional scheme, following the rule of reservations and ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches, and the court directed the petitioner's case to be considered with reference to the 12(3) Settlement and Board Proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to implement the order of the fourth respondent made in Na.Ka.2425/04 dated 10.08.2004 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioner in the first respondent-Corporation as permanent employee as Field Assistant/Helper and also direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the petitioner all the consequential monetary and other benefits arising from the orders of the fourth respondent.)
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to implement the order of the fourth respondent made in Na.Ka.2425/04 dated 10.08.2004 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioner in the first respondent-Corporation as permanent employee as Field Assistant/Helper and also direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the petitioner all the consequential monetary and other benefits arising from the orders of the fourth respondent.
2. The petitioner states that he was working as a Contract Labourer in the first respondent Electricity Board for several years. The petitioner claims that he had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of service. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent to grant permanent status on par with other similarly placed persons. The petitioner states that Justice Khalid Commission submitted a report recommending permanent absorption in respect of contract labourers, who served 480 days in 24 months. Pursuant to the report, the Committee short listed the eligible persons and accordingly, the benefit of permanent absorption was granted. The petitioner, based on the services rendered by him as a Contract Labourer, filed a petition before the Inspector of Labour under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, and the Inspector of Labour passed an order on 02.04.1998, granting the benefit of permanent status in favour of the writ petitioner. However, the said order has not been implemented by the first respondent. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition for a direction to implement the orders of the Inspector of Labour.
3. The first respondent Electricity Board disputed the contentions on the ground that the name of the writ petitioner did not figure in the list of Contract Labourers by Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission and therefore, the benefit of permanent absorption cannot be granted. The first respondent Electricity Board in respect of certain persons is unable to secure the records with reference to the work details and in fact, these contract labourers were engaged by the private contract labourers with whom, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board entered into an agreement to execute the works on behalf of the Electricity Board.
4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 reiterated that on verification of records, eligible contract labourers were identified and accordingly, the benefit of permanent absorption was granted as per 12(3) Settlement dated 10.08.2007, and the consequential Board Proceedings in B.P.(Chairman)No.9, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2008.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Board stated that for grant of permanent absorption, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is bound by their own service regulations, which will prevail over the general laws. The legal principle to be followed is that, whenever there is a special enactment regarding the service regulations or rules of a “State”, then the said service regulations will prevail over the general laws. The service regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board confirme
