AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This order shall govern all the above writ petitions 88 in number. All these writ petitions concentrate on challenging a
circular issued by the respondent Corporation whereby an imposition of 2.5% of the total sales made by the retail vendors who are the petitioners
herein, from the date of the circular, was made.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these cases and also the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.
The short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions can be stated thus:
The respondent Corporation is owned by the State Government. It is also controlled and administered by the Government. It has got the retail
shops throughout the State for vending Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Originally, tenders were called for whereby 2.5% of the actual sale of the last
calendar month was taken as the basis, and it was made as the minimum tender amount. In many of the places, there was response; but, there was
no response in the rest of the places. The Government thought it fit to run the shops by permitting the Shop Supervisors to run the same. The
petitioners are all actually employed as Supervisors. While they were running the shops so, the Government wanted to implement the original
circular dated 17.1.2005, whereby the amount of 2.5% of the total sales was fixed, and it was to be collected from many of the places where the
shops are being run by the Supervisors employed in the respective shops. Accordingly, those Supervisors have been making payment. But, these
petitioners have challenged the same when the proceedings were initiated for collection of the same finding them responsible for the amounts which
remained unpaid according to the respondent. That circular is dated 4.8.2006. Pending the writ petitions, this 2.5%, which, according to the
respondent, the petitioners were liable to pay, was reduced to 1.5%. Under the circumstances, these writ petitions have been brought forth
challenging the same.
Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing for them, would submit that in the instant case, out of these
88 writ petitions, 77 are from Erode District; that out of 77 shops, 47 shops have already been closed; that at the time of the original employment,
they have made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- as security deposit; that they are entitled for the salaries, bonus, medical benefits, etc., except the
E.M.D., which has got to be retained in view of their continuance of the employment; that salaries have not been paid in some of the cases; that
they are also being proceeded with in the guise of the non-payment of 2.5%; that now, 47 shops were already closed; that the respective
petitioners are entitled to get back those amounts referred to above; that as regards the other shops, the respective petitioners are willing to close
the shops since they are not amenable for making the payment of either 2.5% or 1.5% as fixed by the respondent Corporation, and accordingly,
orders have got to be passed.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 19232 and 19259 of 2007 would submit that they were terminated from service for the
non-payment of the amounts, which, according to the respondent, they were liable to pay; that no charges have been framed; that there was no
enquiry at all; that the principles of natural justice have not been followed, and hence, it is a fit case where the removal of service has got to be
quashed.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP Nos.20185, 20186 and 26385 of 2007, would submit that they were kept under suspension for
non-payment of the amounts, which, according to the respondent, they were liable to pay; that the principles of natural justice have not been
followed, and hence, the orders of suspension have got to be revoked.
The Court heard the learned Additional Advocate General on the above contentions.
After hearing the Counsel and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the view that it need not go into the merits or otherwise of the
imposition of 2.5% originally made by way of the circular dated 17.1.2005, and subsequently modified as 1.5%, which is being levied and being
collected from all the shops which are being run by the Supervisors in the State. It is not in controversy that these petitioners are all Supervisors
regularly employed in the shops which are being run, and they have got the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- originally paid. The non-payment of
either 2.5% or 1.5% can in no way interfere in their employment.
Now, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there are cases where they have collected in excess; but, they have not paid
even the fixed amount, and under the circumstances, it becomes necessary to make an enquiry, and if they are responsible, they have got to be
proceeded with. This Court is of the considered opinion that both the removal of service and the suspension of the respective petitioners in those
cases have got to be quashed in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, they are quashed. The respondent
Corporation is at liberty to frame necessary charges thereon, appoint an Enquiry Officer, proceed with the matter after following the principles of
natural justice and take a decision thereon.
As far as the other shops are concerned namely 77 shops, 47 shops have already been closed. Once they have been closed and possession
has been taken over by the respondent Corporation, it is their look out how it is being run in future. As regards those closed shops, no orders are
required to be made. As far as the remaining shops out of 77, are concerned, the respective petitioners have also undertaken that they are not
amenable to make any payment of either 2.5% or 1.5% as fixed by the respondent Corporation. In such circumstances, there cannot be any
impediment for recording their statement that they are willing to close those shops. Accordingly, it is recorded. However, the respondent is at
liberty to take possession and further proceed in the matter either by tender or otherwise to run those retail shops.
It is also made clear that as far as the petitioners are concerned, if any salary or other benefit to which they are entitled to from the time of their
being appointed to run the shops, is due, the respondent is directed to make payment of the same to those employees. In a given case if any
amount has been paid by the petitioners in respect of fixation of 2.5% or 1.5% in the past, it becomes necessary to permit the respondent to
conduct an enquiry over the same and find out the situation. Accordingly, permission is granted. In a given case if the amount is paid and no
collection is made, the respondent is directed to repay the same. If it is found that the petitioners have got any profit out of it, they should be
directed to make payment to the respondent.
It is now brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners were served with notices for the recovery of the amount, which, according to
the respondent, they are liable to pay. In view of the observations made above, there is no necessity to give effect to those notices served upon the
petitioners for the alleged recovery. Accordingly, they are quashed.
In the result, all the above writ petitions are disposed of in the above lines. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.