M.Saraswathi v. The Government Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH 1.M.Saraswathi 2.M.Sathya 3.S.Rajathi 4.G.Pappa 5.K.Periammal 6.M.Vennila 7.P.Madheswari 8.S.Madheswari 9.P.Pushpa 10.P.Ramayi 11.S.Anjalam 12.M.Kasiammal 13.A.Parvathi 1/6
14.K.Kanaga 15.V.Kolanji 16.V.Vasuki 17.V.Thilagavathi 18.A.Mathivanan 19.R.Sudha 20.S.Kalidoss 21.S.Pappathi 22.T.Nandhini 23.R.Anbarasan
...Petitioners
Vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The Commissioner, Narasingapuram Municipality, Narasingapuram - 636 108, Salem District.
2/6
4.Ms/.Eesha Associates, 494/4, Bommidi Main Road, Denishpet, Omalur, Salem - 636 354.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate administrative action to absorb the petitioners in the regular establishment of the third respondent municipality instead of engaging them as Contract Labour and take appropriate action under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and grant them all consequential benefits, as prayed for in the representation dated 15.04.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For R1 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Government Advocate for the 1st respondent.
2. In view of the order to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to the respondents 2 to 4 is dispensed with.
3/6
3. The petitioners herein had given a joint representation to the respondents on 15.04.2021 seeking administrative action to absorb them as regular employees and to grant all consequential benefits. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioners' representation dated 15.04.2021, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of 4/6
receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioners and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
01.06.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk To 1.The Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The Commissioner, Narasingapuram Municipality, Narasingapuram - 636 108, Salem District.
5/6
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk 01.06.2023 6/6