V.T.Kulothungan v. The Chariman Cum Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Special Original Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.M.P.No.10645 of 2021 in W.P.No.19920 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10648 of 2021 in W.P.No.19928 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10652 of 2021 in W.P.No.20145 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10656 of 2021 in W.P.No.20148 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10658 of 2021 in W.P.No.20176 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10661 of 2021 in W.P.No20179 of 2020 1 V.T.KULOTHUNGAN ... PETITIONER in WMP No.10645 of 2021 2 G.RATHINAM 3 S. ELUMALAI 4 R. SIGAMANI 5 S. LOGANATHAN 6 M. KALIYAMURTHY 7 K.ELAMANDA 8 M. RAJAMANICKAM 9 JAYALAKSHMI RADHAKRISHNAN 10 R.RAMAIYAN 11 K. NAGARAJAN 12 A. ANNADURAI 13 P.RAJENDRAN 14 K. EKAMBRAM 15 T.DASARATHAN 16 K.P. RAMANKUTTY 17 S.R. VISWANATHAN 18 P. KANNAN 19 K. CHANDRAN 20 T.KALAMIMANI 21 F.JAYADAS FERNANDO

22 N.V. PURUSHOTHAMAN 23 M.S. DHANASEKARAN 24 M.ITTIKKAN 25 M. PANDI 26 N. KRISHNASWAMY 27 P.K. RAMAKRISHNAN 28 K.K. GOPI 29 J. SEBASTIAN 30 A. KANDASWAMY 31 M. RAMASWAMY 32 K.N. SAMPATH 33 S. THANGAVELU 34 R. WILLIAM 35 N. VENKAIAH 36 J. MURUGESAN 37 O. SREEDHARAN 38 P.P. KUNHUNNI 39 V.GOPINATH NAIR 40 G. KUPPAN 41 S. RAMAKRISHNAN 42 V. LEELAMMAL 43 C. PANDURANGAN 44 B. ADIKESVAN 45 L.GOWRI 46 THANGAVALI 47 MUNUSAMY 48 MURUGAN 49 I J JOSEPH 50 NAYAZ HUSSAIN 51 TG. PUTTAPPAN 52 M.SUNDRANARYAN 53 A.R. RAVICHANDRAN 54 D.R. THIMMA GOWDA 55 P.V. KOPPAN 56 M. BHASKARAN

1 J.SUNDARA MURTHY ... PETITIONER in WMP No.10648 of 2021 2 DHANALASKHMI 3 DAKSHAYANI 4 MUNEESWARI 5 SELVI 6 MEEROON 7 M.CHANDRA 8 SARASWATHI 9 J.RANI 10 A.SHEELA 11 JAYANTHI 12 RUKMANI 13 INDRA 14 SUSHANTA 15 SUNDARAMMAL 16 PUSHPARANI 17 SIVA 18 NIRMALA 19 MARYSTELLA 20 VARALAKSHMI 21 SASIKALA 22 GAJALAKSHMI 23 VASANTHAKUMARI 24 PAUL RAVI 25 P.KANNAN 1 GHOUSE BASHA ... PETITIONER in WMP No.10652 of 2021 2 P.RATHINAM 3 R.MANAVALAN 4 M.SUNDARAJAN 5 K.GIRIJA 6 M.LOGANATHAN 7 K.CHANDRASEKARAN 8 D.H.THIMMA GOWDA 9 M.BHASKARAN 10 B.P.THOMPSON

11 S.KAMATCHI 12 J.RAJAGOPAL 13 G.SHANMUGAM 14 M.DHAYALAN 15 A.PALANIVELU 16 P.JAYALAKSHMI 17 T.K.DHIVAKARAN 18 M.N.K.DEVI MENON 19 K.M.RAMAKRISHNAN 20 K.EKAMBARAM 21 G.RATHINAM 22 K.NAGARAJAN 23 B.DHANASEKARAN 24 E.SABAPATHY 25 K.MUTHUKRISHNANA 26 A.SHANMUGAM 27 A.ADILAKSHMI 28 P.K.THAMPI 29 H.SRIMALU 30 S.PALANI 31 K.KIRUPAKARAN 32 K.JOHN 33 M.KAMALA 34 V.PARAMESHWARAN NAIR 35 INDRANI 36 R.LAKSHMIKANTHAN 37 S.NAJJA 38 C.CHANDRASEKARAN 1 S.HARIKRISHNAN ... PETITIONER in WMP No.10656 of 2021 2 S.SAMUNDEESWARI 3 M.RAJAN 4 JAYALAKSHMI 5 NEDUNCHEZHIYAN 6 SUNDARI 7 BRIAN LONGFORD 8 PAPPA

9 VELUSWAMY 10 SRIDEVI 11 KANNAN 12 P.SURESH 13 INDRANI 14 KRISHNAVENI 15 ANITA ELLIS 16 VIJAYALAKSHMI 17 SATHYA 18 SARA 19 RANJINI 20 RANI 21 M.ANANDHI 22 R.SHAILAJA 23 BHAVANI K.RAJAN ... PETITIONER in WMP No.10658 of 2021 V.JAYAGOPAL ... PETITIONER in WMP No.10661 of 2021 Vs 1 THE CHARIMAN CUM MANAGING ...1 TO 4 RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE DIRECTOR, IDPL CORPORATE OFFICE, PETITIONS OLD DELHI, GURGAON ROAD, DUNDAHERA GURGAON 122016 HARYANA 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER IDPL TAMIL NADU DIVISION NANDAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT STATE, OF TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI 9 4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 9 5 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [5th RESPONDENT IN WMP.10645, CHENNAI, EVK SAMPATH ROAD 10652, 10656, 10658, 10661/2021 VEPERY, CHENNAI-7.

Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the respective affidavits filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

1 WMP No.10645 of 2021 To extend the time limit for vacating the premises by a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

2 WMP No.10648 of 2021 To extend the time for vacating the premises by a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

3 WMP No.10652 of 2021 To extend the time for vacating the premises by a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

4 WMP No.10656 of 2021 To extend the time for vacating the premises by a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

5 WMP No.10658 of 2021 To extend the time limit for vacating the premises by a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

6 WMP No.10661 of 2021 To extend the time limit for vacating the premises by a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

Order : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.P.WILSON, Senior Counsel appearing for M/S.SRINATH SRIDEVAN, Advocate for the petitioner in each the petitions and of M/S.R.HAJA MOHIDEEN GISTHI, Standing Counsel for the 1 & 2 respondents in all the petitions the court made the following order:- These miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the erstwhile employees of IDPL seeking extension of time to vacate the quarters, for a period of three months from 29.04.2021.

2. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these miscellaneous petitions, has submitted that, due to second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, these petitioners could not move from their present location, i.e., quarters, where they have been in occupation. He relied upon the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of these petitions, where it is stated that, after the orders of this Court dated 02.03.2021, there has been a surge in COVID cases in Chennai. As on 17.04.2021, Chennai alone has reported around 2000 cases and thereafter, persons in the Staff Quarters have been tested positive for COVID-19 and many have symptoms of COVID and therefore, in this situation, they are not in a position to move out of the quarters suddenly. Hence, they seek extension of time, he contended.

3. Heard Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for IDPL who would submit that, pursuant to the earlier orders passed by this Court, giving time upto 29.04.2021 to these ex-employees to vacate their quarters, undertaking affidavits have been filed by 80 persons, remaining 49 persons have not filed undertaking affidavits, in respect of whom, further orders have been passed by this Court on 07.04.2021 to take coercive steps to vacate them. Out of the 49, only 13 have vacated. Therefore, altogether the remaining 80 + 36 ie., 116 have not yet vacated the quarters.

4. He would also submit that, on 22.04.2021, when IDPL officials went to the quarters with the police force and made a request to them to vacate the premises, they have stated that, Court had given time till 29.04.2021 and therefore, on or before 29.04.2021 they would vacate the premises.

5. On 29.04.2021, again when attempt was made by IDPL officials, they have stated that, they approached the Court, seeking extension of time. Because of this reason, except, 15+13, i.e., 28 people, others could not be vacated or they have not vacated voluntarily, as per the undertaking given before this Court, Therefore, suitable further orders could be passed, he contended.

6. I have considered the said developments taken place and also the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the ex-employees and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for IDPL.

7. In fact, orders were passed by this Court on 02.03.2021, where a set of directions were given by this Court. Though undertaking affidavits have been filed by atleast 80 employees to vacate the premises on or before 29.04.2021, it seems that, they have not taken any steps to move out of the quarters and now they make a claim that, due to COVID-19 surge ie., second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, they are not in a position to move out.

8. Many orders have been passed by this Court and when last such order was passed, it was appealed to this Court on behalf of those ex-employees that, certainly these employees would vacate the premises if some reasonable time is given. That is the reason why this Court wanted undertaking affidavits to be filed before this Court and accordingly 80 of them have filed undertaking affidavits, remaining have not even chosen to file the undertaking affidavit.

9. In this regard, the learned counsel who appeared for these employees has submitted that, despite his best efforts taken, the remaining employees have not come forward to file undertaking affidavits.

10. It is to be noted that, those employees are not under the control of the learned counsel appearing for those employees. However, now these miscellaneous petitions have been filed seeking extension of time.

11. Only in today's hearing, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appeared for those ex-employees and he has submitted that, there is absolutely no merit in the claim made by the employees, as they should have vacated the premises on or before the last date given by this Court, as per their undertaking given in this regard before this Court.

12. However, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that, due to the sudden surge of COVID-19 second wave of the pandemic, some humanitarian consideration can be shown to these ex-employees and accordingly if some time is given, certainly these employees would vacate the premises and this request, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is made only on humanitarian consideration due to COVID-19 second wave and not on merits or any other reason.

13. No doubt, it is the second wave of COVID-19, due to which normalcy has been considerably affected or paralysed. However, in respect of these employees, strictly speaking, that reason would not be applicable, because, they had been suffered with orders by this Court long back and they should have vacated the premises long back. However, they have filed case after case or petition after petition giving one reason or other and ultimately they have come forward to file undertaking affidavits to vacate the premises / quarters on or before 29.04.2021.

14. In this regard, a further direction was given by this Court, to take the police force to vacate these persons by taking coercive steps and when such attempt was made by IDPL, it was informed by the learned Standing Counsel for the IDPL that, those ex-employees have circulated a message through social media among themselves that they have time till 29.04.2021 to vacate the premises and therefore till such time no action can be taken against them and there may not be any coercive steps.

15. Simultaneously, they have approached this Court by filing these petitions.

16. These series of actions from both sides would go to show that, one way or the other by showing lame excuses, these exemployees want to stick on with their stand to continue to stay at the quarters and in this regard, it can very well be construed that, in order to flout the orders of this Court, now they take the tool of COVID-19 second wave as a reason.

17. Normally, this Court will show its helping hand on humanitarian grounds to any litigant who knock the doors of this temple of justice. However, such a helping hand shall not come forward to rescue any unscrupulous litigants like these exemployees.

18. However, even for the worst person, this Court will show its sympathy in case of such person's life is in danger. This COVID-19 second wave is fastly spreading throughout the country including this State and there is an abnormal situation prevailing everywhere. Therefore, taking into account this totality of the situation, especially in the context of surge in COVID-19 pandemic second wave, this Court, though it is considered to be a misplaced sympathy, having no other option, extends such sympathy towards these employees for giving some extension of time to vacate the quarters.

19. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following order in these miscellaneous petitions :

a) That these petitioners / ex-employees of IDPL shall vacate the premises, i.e., where they are presently occupying at IDPL Campus at Chennai on or before 30.06.2021.

b) The IDPL shall take every effort to monitor the periodical vacating of the quarters / premises by each and every ex-employees who are remaining as well as the petitioners in these miscellaneous petitions on or before the time now has been extended and accordingly file a report to that effect before this Court during the next hearing date, for which the main writ petitions can be called on 05.07.2021.

c) It is made clear that, under no circumstances, any further extension of time shall be given to these ex-employees for vacating the quarters and certainly this Court will not hesitate to pass stringent orders to give direction to the IDPL officials as well as concerned police people to take immediate coercive steps to vacate these employees, if they are not vacated on or before 30.06.2021.

d) It is further made clear that, in respect of those ex-employees who have not filed these miscellaneous petitions or who are not covered in this batch of orders, i.e., those who have not filed petitions referred to above, this order will not stand in the way for taking further steps to vacate them by IDPL.

20. With the above directions, these miscellaneous petitions are disposed of. List W.M.P.No.10734 of 2021 in W.P.No.32970 of 2003 also for hearing along with the main writ petitions during the next date of hearing ie., on 05.07.2021.

-sd/- 30/04/2021 / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE CHARIMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, IDPL CORPORATE OFFICE, OLD DELHI, GURGAON ROAD, DUNDAHERA GURGAON 122016 HARYANA 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER IDPL TAMIL NADU DIVISION NANDAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT STATE, OF TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI 9 4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 9 5 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI CC to M/S. SRINATH SRIDEVAN, Advocate SR.No.3076 Order in W.M.P.No.10645 of 2021 in W.P.No.19920 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10648 of 2021 in W.P.No.19928 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10652 of 2021 in W.P.No.20145 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10656 of 2021 in W.P.No.20148 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10658 of 2021 in W.P.No.20176 of 2020 W.M.P.No.10661 of 2021 in W.P.No20179 of 2020 Date :30/04/2021 From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format KP(03/05/2021)