Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. The Chairman Cum Managing

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.1478 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD)No.1265 of 2019 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Workers, Progressive Union, (Reg.No.38-CPT), Rep. by its Regional Secretary / Thermal Stations and System President / Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, A.Mariya John Francis, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO, Tuticorin - 4.

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai-2.

2.The Chief Engineer, Personnel, 144, Anna Saalai, TANGEDCO, Chennai -2.

3.The Chief Engineer, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO, Tuticorin-4.

4.The Director, Regional Labour Institute, Adayar, Chennai.

5.The Chief Engineer, Planning and Resource Centre, TANGEDCO, N.P.K. R.R.Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

6.D.Gajendran, Junior Engineer / Mechanical I Grade, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO, Tuticorin - 4.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein to depute interested staffs to pursue one year course in Diploma in Industrial Safety at the 4th respondent Institution without any reservation as to branch or cadre and to scrupulously follow the provisions of Tamil Nadu Safety Officers (Duties, Qualifications and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005, while appointing Safety Officer. For Petitioner :

No appearance For Respondents :

Mr.K.Ashok Kumar for R4 Mr.D.Saravanan for R6 No appearance for R1 to R3 and R5

O R D E R

When the matter came up for hearing on 11.11.2024, the learned counsel who was on record for the petitioner reported no instructions. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list and remove the name of the learned counsel on record for the petitioner. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner is printed in the cause list today.

2. However, today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 6 would submit that the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous and that may be the reason, the petitioner has not come forward to prosecute the same.

4. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

13.11.2024 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mbi

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY , J.

mbi 13.11.2024