AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—In all the above writ petitions, the petitioner in each of the writ petition has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus
or direction directing the respondents to fulfill their promise by providing suitable employment to the petitioner or petitioner''s son or ward in the 4th
respondent LPG Bottling Plant located at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi.
Heard Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. V. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for respondents 1 to 3, Mr. Sahadevan learned counsel appearing for SIPCOT and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms.
T.S. Gopalan & Co., for respondents 4 and 5.
With the consent of counsel for either side these writ petitions and the connected WMPs are taken up for final disposal.
The petitioners claim that their lands were acquired for the purpose of expansion of industrial complex to set up LPG bottling plant. The
objections raised by the petitioners for acquisition were overruled. The petitioners did not challenge the acquisition and the petitioners were paid
only a meager sum. The petitioners are affected by the acquisition of land and eligible for employment in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 656, Labour and
Employment, dated 28.6.1978. Despite the G.O directing employment to persons displaced by the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners or
their wards or sons are denied of employment in the LPG Bottling Plant. It is the claim of the petitioners that their family has no income and they
are the eligible family members who could be appointed in any one of the vacancies in the 4th respondent LPG Plants. The respondents are
obliged to offer employment to the petitioners or their sons or wards as the case may be and at least one member from each family should be given
employment by way of rehabilitation consequent to the entire lands owned by the respective petitioners.
These writ petitions are being resisted by the respondents 4 and 5 contending that no case has been made out for issue of mandamus on the
facts of the case. The respondents 4 and 5 have put up LPG Bottling plant in the Industrial Estate of SPICOT of Gummidipoondi after taking
50.90 acres on lease for 99 years from SIPCOT. The lands were acquired for the purpose of SIPCOT. The lands were not acquired for the
purpose of respondents 4 and 5, but it was acquired for the purpose of SIPCOT Industrial Complex at Gummidipoondi. In terms of the lease
entered between the SIPCOT and the respondents 4 and 5, 10% of the jobs in the Plant is reserved to the members of the family of the displaced
land owners subject to eligibility and qualification in Class III and IV jobs.
According to the respondents the plant was commissioned during March 1997 and at that time required man power was determined at 22.
Despite the reminders the District Collector and the third respondent did not sponsor the names and hence the 22 vacancies were filled up by
direct recruitment as well as deployment from other locations. It is also stated a number of displaced persons moved number of writ petitions since
1997 onwards. Pending the writ petitions, interim orders were passed and the respondents 4 and 5 moved applications to vacate the interim
directions. On 27.4.2000 this court directed the respondents 4 and 5 to invite applications from all eligible persons who have been displaced by
the land acquisition proceedings and engage 22 of them as a temporary measure, whom they find suitable and eligible to be appointed in respect of
22 vacancies. The said engagement is a temporary measure. In terms of the order of this court 25 candidates were empanelled in the list of casual
vacancies and 22 are being engaged. The process of selection for regular appointment was simultaneously undertaken among the candidates
whose lands have been acquired. 73 persons responded to the written test, 34 of them qualified for interview and out of that 5 were offered
regular employment. The list of 22 candidates who are in the panel of casual labour are given in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and list of 5
candidates among the land giver families who were offered regular employment is given in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. By the appointment
of 5 candidates from the land giver families, the obligation of providing employment to the members of the land giver families as per terms of the
lease deed, has been fully complied with. At the time when the second shift operation was to commence the manpower requirement for both shifts
was assessed at 44 and now it has come down to 41 because of introduction of automation. It is contended that the G.O.Ms. No. 656 dated
29.6.1978 is not applicable to respondents 4 and 5. The recruitment has been done in a most transparent manner.
Annexures to the counter affidavit read thus:-
ANNEXURE-A
PAPs-Casual Engagement
Sl. No
Name of Candidates
Name of Land owners
Survey No.
1
M. Vasudevan
Munusamy
S. No. 3/90
2
D. Sukumar
Dakshinamurthy
S. No. 3/90
3
T.G. Suriyamurthy
G. Parvathiammal
S. No. 3/90
4
C. Shanmugam
Chinnaraj
S. No. 3/90
5
T. Durai
Durai
S. No. 3/90
6
P.M. Karthikeyan
P.B. Mani
S. No. 6/92
7
R. Raja
K.s. Roja
S. No. 6/92
8
C. Saravanan
Chinnadurai
S. No. 6/92
9
P. Babu
P. Subramaniam
S. No. 6/92
10
M. Dinakaran
Anjammal
S. No. 6/92
11
S. babu
P. Krishnan
S. No. 6/92
12
G. Sekar
Govindraju
S. No. 6/92
13
N. Venkatesan
K. Nataraja Reddy
S. No. 6/92
14
C. Kumar
Chockkalingam
S. No. 6/92
15
P. Gowthaman
Saroja
S. No. 6/92
16
G. Ramesh
K. Gopal
S. No. 6/92
17
G. Ramesh
A. Govindasamy
S. No. 6/92
18
S. Saravanan
Jayammal
S. No. 6/92
19
S. Raghu
K. Singaram
S. No. 6/92
20
G. Nareshkumar
Gnanamurthi
S. No. 6/92
21
M.S. Palani
Babu
S. No. 6/92
22
G. Saravanan
Ganesan
S. No. 6/92
ANNEXURE-B
LIST OF PAPs RECRUITED
Sl. No.
Name of Candidate
Name of Land Owner
Survey No.
1
G. Srinivasan
C.s. Gananasundaram
3/90
2
R. Arumaiselvan
P. RangasamyReddy
3/90
3
D. Murali
Devaraj
6/92
4
J. Veeran
Perumal Reddiar
3/90
5
D. Mohanvel
M. Gunaseelan
6/92
According to the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 the said respondents have complied with the condition stipulated in the lease deed
viz., 10% of the total jobs in the Industrial Units coming up in the Industrial Complex to be reserved for the members of the land owners whose
lands have been acquired subject to eligibility as per qualification prescribed for the jobs. Clause 33 reads thus:-
Ten Percent of the jobs in the Industrial Units coming up in the Industrial Complex, shall be reserved to the members of the families of land
owners whose lands have been acquired for the industrial complex, subject to eligibility as per qualifications prescribed for the jobs.
In terms of the affidavit the total workers employed in the LPG Plant being 44, the respondents are bound to employ 5 persons from and out of
the families of the land owners whose lands have been acquired. As set out in the counter affidavit respondents 4 and 5 have already employed 22
casuals out of whom 5 persons have been recruited as against permanent vacancies under the land owners category. It is contended as set out in
the counter affidavit the lands in question have not been acquired exclusively for respondents 4 and 5, but it has been acquired by the SIPCOT.
SIPCOT while granting the lease has stipulated a condition that 10% of the total workers shall be reserved for members of the families whose
lands have been acquired. It is now contended that the respondents have complied with the said condition.
It is contended that The petitioners cannot rely upon the Government Orders nor they could rely upon the pronouncement of this court in 1992
WLR page 498 (Dharanipathy Lakshmi Devi Vs. Secretary to Govt. Of T.N. And 3 others), W.P.Nos:3490 of 1999 etc., batch (Thulukkanam
Vs. Govt. of T.N and Ors) or for that matter the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 101 (Calcutta Port Trust Vs. Deba
Prosad Bag and others). The learned senior counsel contended that the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the above said
pronouncements and the pronouncements will not apply. .
Reliance has been placed on the order of P.SATHASIVAM,J., IN W.P.Nos:3490 of 1999 etc batch which is passed in respect of Bottling
Plant commissioned by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi, as according to the learned counsel
for the petitioner the case is identical in all respect. But Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 points
out that HPCL has not brought to the notice of the learned Judge about the term of lease which provides for 10% of the employment to the
displaced persons and therefore the said pronouncement has no application to the facts of the case. There is force in the submission made by the
learned senior counsel .Taking into consideration of the fact that the lands were acquired for SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi, which in
turn has leased out the lands to the respondent-Bottling plant and when there is a stipulation in the lease deed, while holding that the respondents 4
and 5 have complied with the stipulations agreed upon, but to render substantial justice, this court issues the following directions on the facts of the
case, while accepting the distinction pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
As fairly admitted, the respondents 4 and 5 have to reserve 10% of the post for the members of the displaced families provided if they possess
the qualification. As seen from the counter affidavit 5 persons have been appointed on permanent basis and the remaining out of 22 are being
engaged as casuals. In the circumstances, while holding that the respondents 4 and 5 have complied with their obligation which they have
undertaken, this court issues the following directions:-
(i) The respondents 4 and 5 shall reserve 10% of the permanent vacancies in the LPG Bottling Plant, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi
for the families of the land owners whose lands have been acquired in terms of Clause 33 of the lease deed and that reservation shall be maintained
as per the lease deed stipulation.
(ii) The remaining Seventeen casuals who are being engaged since 2000 by the respondents 4 and 5 in the LPG Bottling Plant, SIPCOT Industrial
Estate, Gummidipoondi as casuals shall be continued to be engaged as casuals and since they have been working for a considerable period, that
apart the said respondents 4 and 5 require casuals in the Bottling Plant, the status of those casuals shall improve as and when they are eligible to
become ""workman"" as per the statutory provisions and they shall also be absorbed in the usual course permanently as and when vacancy arises
and they shall not be ousted on any ground whatsoever.
With the above directions, the above writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.