S. Jeyaraman v. The Senior Regional Manager
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and M.P(MD).No.2 of 2015 1.S.Jeyaraman 2.S.Durairaj 3.S.Boominathan 4.P.Sundaram 5.S.Alagarsamy 6.S.Fransis 7.V.Kumar 8.S.Ramadhas 9.A.Subramani 10.R.Panneer Selvam 11.P.Karunanithi 12.K.Muniappa 13.E.Bose 14.R.Manickam 15.S.Marimuthu 16.K.Mohan 17.R.Kadasamy 18.K.Sakthivel 19.R.Natarajan 20.S.Arulmurugan 21.K.Prahasekar 22.M.Selvakumar 23.P.Ganesan 24.P.Bose 25.S.Nagaraj 26.T.Arumugam 27.A.Pathinettan 28.S.Veerayan 29.K.S.Gurusamy 30.M.Ravi 31.K.Krishnan 32.A.George 33.R.Karnan 34.B.Manimakaran 35.S.Asaithambi 36.G.Baskaran 37.K.Elangovan 38.S.Chelladurai 39.S.Samykannu 1/3
40.M.Thirukannan 41.V.Gopala Krishnan 42.K.Karuppasamy 43.M.Karuppaiah 44.S.Muniasamy 45.L.Selvaraj 46.M.Selvam 47.P.Mookaiah 48.V.Chellappa 49.A.Ravichandran 50.B.Rajeswaran 51.S.Palani 52.P.Sundarapandi 53.C.Rengaraj 54.M.Ravichandran 55.P.Harikrishnan 56.S.Karuppasamy 57.V.Anbalagan 58.M.Murugan 59.S.Janakiraman 60.C.Tamilarasan ... Petitioners -Vs1.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Thanjavur Region, Thanjavur.
2.The Assistant Manager, Quality Control, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Santhanam Godown, Pillayarpatti, Thanjavur.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners as Load man by considering their continues employment in terms of Tamil nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muralai For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Load Man by considering their continuous employment in terms of Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Worksmen Act, 1981.
2.Presuming that the petitioners have got a right under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, the writ petition for grant of 2/3
relief under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act directly cannot be entertained. This apart, the application of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act as far as the employees of the Civil Supplies Corporation Act is also to be considered. However, all these disputed facts with reference to the facts and circumstances of the employees working in Civil Supplies Corporation cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such disputed facts are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences available before the competent forum. As far as the grant of regularization or permanent absorption is concerned, Civil Supplies Corporation is not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitiution of India.
Thus, the service regulation framed by the Civil Supplies Corporation would be applicable to its employees. The legal principles are also settled by the Consitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs., UmaDevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. Therefore, the Hight Court cannot issue a direction to regularize the services of the employees and even in Govindasamy's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot issue any direction for grant of regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted. Regularization and permanent absorption sought to be granted only in accordance with the Rules.
Provided the initial appointment is in accordance with the regulation and the employees are eligible for such regularization. In the present writ petition, the relief as such sought for to grant regularization under the provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act cannot be granted by the High Court in a writ porceedings and therefore, the petitioner is at liberity to approach the competent authority for the purpose of redressal of their grievances, if they otherwise qualified in accordance with the regulation and in consonance with the principles laid down by the Constitution Court.
3.With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/ Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- ) +1.CC TO Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate in SR No.26514 18.12.2020 rmk PK/18.01.2021 : 3P/2C 3/3