The Superintending Engineer v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No. 20937 of 2005 The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.
... Petitioner Vs 1.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Chennai - 9.
2.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Labour and Employment Department, Chennai - 9.
3.
The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar.
4.
A. Rajarathinam 5.
M.Ramachandran 6.
M.Muthukaruppan 7.
M.Thangamuthu 1/7
8.
S.Arjunan 9.
S.Pandi 10.
P.Radhakrishnan 11.
V.Marimuthu 12.
S.Udayachandran 13.
L.Shanmugavel 14.
A.Sowdandirapandi 15.
M.Perumal 16.
T.Gandhi 17.
A. Dhanushkodi 18.
M.Alagarsamy 19.
K.Udaiyar 20.
S.Gurusamy 21.
A.Kazhukachalamoorthy 22.
N.Nareshbabu 23.
P.Thirumurugan 24.
K.Kumaramangalam 25.
V.Chittumanickam 26.
V.Muthusami 27.
G.Thaladiyan 28.
T. Kannan 29.
P.Vellaian 30.
A.Veeran 31.
A. Karuppasamy 32.
P.Veeranan 33.
M.Veeran 34.
K.Raja 35.
V. Vellaisamy 36.
K.Solai 37.
P.Asaithambi 38.
J.Joseph 39.
P.Devanesan 40.
V.Nethirajan 41.
S.Mariappan 42.
S. Karuppaiah 43.
M.Sakthivel 2/7
44.
K.Illangovan 45.
S.Arumugam 46.
T.Muniasamy 47.
I.Karuppasamy 48.
S.Malaisamy 49.
M.Munisamy 50.
M.Karuppaiah 51.
S.Nagendran 52.
G. Ayyakalai 53.
M.Karuppaiah 54.
N.Ravichandran 55.
M.Subramnian 56.
M.Chandrasekaran 57.
J. Devakirubai 58.
P.Rasu 59.
M.Ramasamy 60.
M.Jeyakumar 61.
M.Murugavel 62.
P.Chellamuthu 63.
T.Muthukrishnan 64.
R.Prakash 65.
R.Kumar 66.
M.Rajendran 67.
R.Gajendran 68.
M.Pandi 69.
M.Vellaisamy 70.
K.Deivendran 71.
K.Alagumalai 72.
P.Mohandass 73.
K.Balaiah 74.
R.Petchimuthu 75.
V.Karuppasamy 76.
D.Sundaramoothy 77.
P.Chidambaram 78.
K.Palani 79.
S.Kanagaraj 3/7
80.
R.Karunakaran 81.
P.Gnanamuthu 82.
M.Ariyan 83.
N.Narayanan 84.
A.Ramar 85.
S.Damodaran 86.
N.Gopi 87.
S.Pandi 88.
A.Kamalhasan 89.
G.Radhakrishnan 90.
K.Mookaiah 91.
A.Muthupandi 92.
A.Yogiakhan 93.
A. Baskaran 94.
S.Murugesan 95.
S. Sellam 96.
M.Paulpandi 97.
P. Saravana Pandian 98.
S.Tamilselvam 99.
S.Karuppasamy 100.
P.Janakiraman 101.
The General Secretary, Thozhilalargal Matrum Tamilnadu Minvariya Uzhaippalargal Sangam, State Head Office, Vairam Plaza Siruthaiyur, Lalgudi, Trichy.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent relating to his proceedings dated 18.10.2004 and made in Na.Ka.No.A 8157/2004 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. 4/7
For Petitioner : Ms.S.B.Keerthan for M/s. Agam Legal For R1 & R2 : Mr. K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Labour Court For R4 to R100 : Not ready in notice For 101 : Notice served
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the Award passed by the third respondent, Inspector of Labour dated 18.10.2004 under the Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanent Status of Workman in Industrial Establishments Act. By the impugned award, totally 97 workmen were directed to be conferred permanent status. Those workmen are arrayed as respondents No. 4 to 100.
2. When the matter came up for hearing today, Ms.S.B.Keethana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that pending the writ petition, 12(3) settlement was entered into and in terms of 12(3) settlement except nine workmen involved in the present case namely respondent No.30, 36, 57, 65, 72, 80, 81, 91 & 95, everybody else have already been absorbed and they are working in the petitioner management and 5/7
therefore nothing further survives in respect of them.
3. In a batch of writ petitions preferred by the petitioner management which was taken up along with W.A.No. 1302 of 2003, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that, subsequent 12(3) settlement would govern the field. When the employees have entered into a settlement and in terms of the settlement, the management has to absorb them and only nine of the workmen not having been found to be eligible and they have also not approached the management nor this Court. Therefore, in respect of them also, in view of the 12(3) settlement, nothing further survives to be adjudicated in the matter.
4. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
16.12.2024 nsl 6/7
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl To 1.
The Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Chennai - 9.
2.
The Secretary to Labour and Employment Department, The Government of Tamilnadu Chennai - 9.
3.
The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar.
16.12.2024 7/7