The General Manager v. M.Sekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.Nos.29404, 29406, 29514, 29636, 29424, 29565, 29567, 29569, 29570, 29572, 29580, 29413, 29416, 29420, 29422 of 2024 & W.M.P.Nos.32030, 32043, 32169, 32285, 32061, 32216, 32219, 32223, 32225, 32226, 32235, 32049, 32052, 32055 & 32058 of 2024 W.P.No.29404 of 2024 The General Manager, Krishnagiri District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Kanagamutulu Post, Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri District 635 001.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.M.Sekhar 2.The Authorised Officer cum Deputy Director, Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Commissioner / Director, Dairy Development Department, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 051.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and to quash the order dated 15.06.2020 issued by the second respondent herein made in Order Page No.1 of 6
No.A/947/2020 in favour of the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.I.John Arockiadas For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan for R1 Mrs.M.Jayanthi, AGP for R2 COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 15.06.2020 issued by the second respondent in favour of the workmen.
2. Heard Mr.I.John Arockiadas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for R1 and Mrs.M.Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader for R2 in all the Writ Petitions and perused the materials available on record.
3. Mr.I.John Arockiadas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority who passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to pass the above order and that after the amendment brought in the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent Workmen who were denied permanent status despite having qualification to get permanency, can raise only the industrial dispute and should not seek Page No.2 of 6
remedy under the Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanent Status Act, 1981.
4. Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the first respondent / workmen submitted that the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the impugned order for four years. In fact, the workmen have filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7017 of 2021, seeking a direction for compliance of the impugned order and this Court has also issued appropriate orders in the said Writ Petition vide its order dated 07.03.2024. Hence, it is submitted that these Writ Petitions have been filed as a tactic to escape from complying the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.7017 of 2021.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the impugned order conferring permanency on the workmen, immediately after the order was passed. The petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions after the delay of four years and it is too late to come up now and say that the authority who passed the order did not have jurisdiction. Even according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Page No.3 of 6
authority concerned is the Occupational Safety and Health Officer who has been conferred with the power of the authority conferring permanent status under the Government Orders issued in this regard.
6. It is curious to note that the petitioner has not chosen to raise the above contention before the second respondent authority and the petitioner had subjected to the jurisdiction of the second respondent and suffered an award with direction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has raised a legal issue. But, the fact remains that the authority who has passed the impugned order is the authority who has been conferred with such powers by various Government Orders and he is the Government appointed authority to decide about permanency. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the order appointing the authority who has passed the impugned order of permanency. Having not chosen to obey the impugned order all these years and after receiving a direction from this Court in pursuant to the Writ Petition filed by various workmen, the petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions as an after thought. No reason has been stated as to the inordinal delay and laches involved in filing these Writ Petitions. Since the petitioner did not comply the order of the Page No.4 of 6
second respondent authority, the first respondent workmen are not able to enjoy the fruits of the order. So the petitioner is expected to comply the orders in pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent / workmen in W.P.No.7017 of 2021 vide order dated 07.03.2024.
7. In view of the above stated reasons, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes /No 18.10.2024 Speaking / Non-speaking gsk Page No.5 of 6
R.N.MANJULA , J.
gsk To 1.The Authorised Officer cum Deputy Director, Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Commissioner / Director, Dairy Development Department, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 051.
W.P.Nos.29404, 29406, 29514, 29636, 29424, 29565, 29567, 29569, 29570, 29572, 29580, 29413, 29416, 29420, 29422 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.32030, 32043, 32169, 32285, 32061, 32216, 32219, 32223, 32225, 32226, 32235, 32049, 32052, 32055 & 32058 of 2024 18.10.2024 Page No.6 of 6