AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner to punish the respondent for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.
No. 2302 of 2007 dated 04.04.2007.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner was heard along with two other writ petitions and were disposed of by a common order dated
04.04.2007. In paragraph 7, it was ordered as follows:-
It is an admitted case that the petitioners had completed more than 240 days of service and apart from this though the learned Special
Government Pleader has also submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners will not apply to the petitioners in
these cases, but no point has been made out by the learned Special Government Pleader in support of his contention and apart from this, there is a
specific averment in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions that the orders passed in writ appeal No. 1294 to 1299 of 1997 will
squarely apply to the facts of these writ petitions. As such, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader the above said judgment will
not apply to the case of the petitioners will not stand when no specific ground has not been made out before this Court in this regard.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred writ appeals in W.A.Nos.144 to 146 of 2011. All the writ appeals including the writ
appeal filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.02.2011, thereby confirming the order passed by
the learned Judge.
In fact it was the specific stand of the transport corporation that the contempt petitioner and other workers have not completed 240 days of
service and therefore, they are not eligible to get benefit in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as G.O. Ms. No. 41
Transport (C.1) Department, dated 13.07.2006. But that argument was rejected by the Division Bench by holding that the issue was earlier
considered by a Division Bench in M. Sekaran v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division- II, Erode
reported in 2006 (1) LLN 257 and hence, the prayer made in the writ appeals was rejected. The subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was
also rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to punish the respondent.
Subsequently, the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 41 Transport Department, dated 13.07.2006. referred to by this Court came to be
challenged by the persons waiting in the Employment Exchange questioning the right of reemployment. In this case, the petitioner also claimed right
only in terms of the said Government Order. The said GO sought to be enforced by persons who are similarly placed were heard in a batch of writ
petitions and were dismissed by an order dated 24.04.2007. The said judgment is subsequently reported in 2007 (2) L.L.N. 535 [Kumaran and
others v. State of Tamil Nadu (Represented by its Secretary, Transport Department), Chennai and others. This Court while upholding the right of
re-employment, in paragraphs 37 and 38 observed as follows:-
In view of the dispute over their claim, the said employees will have to approach the appropriate Labour Court to establish the total number of
days worked by them and that their subsequent non-employment and their claim preference for re-employment was guaranteed under S. 25H of
the I.D.Act. It is for them to prove to the satisfaction of the Labour Court that they were actually retrenched in terms of the main definition under S.
2(oo) of the I.D.Act and not covered by the exception found under Sub-Sec.(bb) of S. 2(oo) of the I.D.Act.
38.As can be seen from the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, viz.Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai and
another [2007 (1) L.L.N. 78] (vide supra), State of Rajasthan v. Sarjeet Singh and another [2007 (1) L.L.N. 122] (vide supra) and Gangadhar
Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., [2007 (1) L.L.N. 139] (vide supra), even in pre-1984 cases, the Labour Court has discretion to award compensation and
not reinstatement since the entry into employment was not proper and it was made as a stopgap arrangement. Though the object of the first
respondent in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 41, Transport Department, dated 13 July 2006, to accommodate persons covered by Para. 4(i) may be
inevitable, but with reference to Paras 4(ii) and 4(iii) of the G.O., the said exercise cannot be undertaken by the second respondent-Corporation
either until further orders are passed by this Court in cases which are pending consideration, or in other cases, the workmen get declaration from
the appropriate Labour Court after establishing that they were actually retrenched in terms of S. 2(oo) of the I.D.Act and their cases do not fall
under Subsec.( bb) of S. 2(oo) of the I.D.Act.
The counsel for the petitioner when confronted as to why the said judgment was never cited at the time when he secured an order, he is unable
to express any opinion on the same. It is rather unfortunate that the counsels do not bring to the notice of this Court the latest decision on the same
subject and are attempting to secure/snatch orders from this Court very often by keeping silence and not informing the Court the correct position of
law. It is because of the same, orders came to be passed as noted above. In the present case, despite the respondent contending that the petitioner
has not complied with the legal requirement and no such direction can be issued, the petitioner has come forward to punish the respondent for
having allegedly disobeyed the order of this Court. It is because of the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will have to suffer for
securing a wrong order and trying to enforce the said order.
In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the contempt petition. It is open to the petitioner to move the appropriate Labour
Court for getting proper relief. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed.