Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
A. Sivakumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-op. & Consumer Protection Dept., Chennai & Others - Respondent
Case No : W.P. Nos. 21440, 21441, 21442 of 2015, 18263, 27535 of 2010, 14726, 15943, 15944, 15945, 34257, 34260, 34258, 34259 of 2012, 33595, 33596, 33597, 33598, 39950 of 2015, 6805, 19111, 27319 of 2016, 7054, 7057, 7055, 7056, 12596, 27840, 29238, 32549, 32550 of 2017, 25419 of 2019, 5549, 9396, 9533 of 2020, 96, 279, 287, 286, 282, 1585, 1601, 1602, 1607, 1591, 1594, 1597, 1587, 1608, 1652, 1666, 1671, 1655, 1659, 1678, 1662, 1685, 1845, 1857, 1863, 1865, 1869, 1885, 1889, 1890, 1891 of 2021 & etc
Decided On : 19-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Sundaravadanam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P.H. Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General asstd. by L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader (Co-operatives).

Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.

Headnote:
The Court held that the Petitioners, who were appointed in various Cooperative Societies before 12.03.2001, had satisfied the substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1998 (Rules). The Court further held that the appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal. Therefore, the Court directed the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners by issuing appropriate proceedings within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the Order by taking the cut-off date as 12.03.2001.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners were appointed in various Cooperative Societies before 12.03.2001. They were all recruited by the respective societies based on the vacancies available and all of them have put in decades of service. However, their services were not regularized. The Petitioners filed writ petitions seeking for regularization of their services.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Petitioners had satisfied the substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule 149(1) of the Rules. The Court further held that the appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Issues: Whether the Petitioners had satisfied the substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule 149(1) of the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioners had satisfied the substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule 149(1) of the Rules. The Court further held that the appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal. Therefore, the Court directed the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners by issuing appropriate proceedings within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the Order by taking the cut-off date as 12.03.2001.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners by issuing appropriate proceedings within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the Order by taking the cut-off date as 12.03.2001.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer in W.P.No.21440/2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.114175/2011/WP2 dated 25.05.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents nos.1 to 4 to regularize the services of the petitioners post ration shop packer with all monetary and attendant benefits.

1. The current batch of Writ Petitions are filed seeking for regularization of the services of the Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case may be.

2. The Petitioners have all joined as salesmen or as packers in various Cooperative Societies, Marketing Societies and Cooperative Wholesale Stores (hereinafter collectively referred to as “cooperative societies” or “societies”) before 12.03.2001. It is an admitted case that none of these Petitioners were sponsored from the employment exchange. They were all recruited by the respective societies based on the vacancies available and all of them have put in decades of service.

3. It would be more appropriate to trace the brief history involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions.

4. The State Government took into consideration the employment of a large number of salesmen and packers in various societies whose services was utilised continuously for years together and decided to regularize their services. A government order was issued in GO (MS) No. 86 dt. 12.03.2001, by the Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department (hereinafter referred to as “department”), through which the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was vested with the power to regularize the services of those employees who have been appointed after 08.07.1980, by way of an irregular appointment, by means other than through an employment exchange provided, they have completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of two calendar years (or 24 service months), as provided under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The Government Order provided that if any such irregular appointments are made subsequent to the said Order, action may be taken against such societies, as provided for under the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 and that the government shall not take responsibility for any such irregular appointments made thereof. The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies was directed to instruct/inform the concerned managements of various societies in this regard.

5. The validity of the said Government Order in GO (MS) No. 86, dt. 12.03.2001, came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in L. Justine & Anr. v. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies and 2 Ors. reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 and this Court upheld the Government Order and directed that regularization of services of these employees appointed after 08.07.1980 and before 12.03.2001 be done based on and subject to the findings and directions given thereto.

6. The above-mentioned judgment in L. Justine (cited supra) was taken on an appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition and it was heard along with other connected appeals in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals, reversed some of the findings of this Court in L.Justine, with respect to the power of the State Government under Sections 170 and 182 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the Executive Power under Article 162 of The Constitution of India, 1950.

7. On 02.11.2006, the department issued Government Letter No. 22322/CG1/2005-7, CF & CP delegating the powers vested in the Registrar of Cooperative Societies through GO (MS) No. 86 dt. 12.03.2001, to the Regional Joint Registrars. By the said letter, the Regional Joint Registrars were directed to regularize the service of all employees appointed after 08.07.1980 and on or before 11.03.2001. This was done s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Mad) 518

Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.

Cases Referred (14)