S. Mukkaiah vs The Deputy Director of Animal Husbandary, Cattle Breeding and Fodder Development, The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and The Secretary, Animal and Husbandry Department, Government of Tamil Nadu

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to implement the order

of the second respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 101 of 1987 dated 19.1.1993, which was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 12960 of

1994 dated 26.7.2005.

The petitioner joined in the service of the first respondent in August 1976 and he was posted in Chinthamani Kendra Kirama Nilayam,

Tirunelveli, as part-time worker. The petitioner was paid monthly salary of Rs. 130/-. After three years, he was transferred to the village Kendra at

Sankarankovil. In the year 1982, the petitioner was issued with appointment order dated 4.5.1982 appointing him as Messenger on daily wage

basis after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In the year 1986, the petitioner was terminated from service orally, by the

Assistant Medical Officer at Chinthamani Kendra Kirama Nilayam. Therefore, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 101 of 1987

before the second respondent, Labour Court, and the Labour Court passed an award holding that the termination of the petitioner from service is

illegal and the petitioner is directed to be re-instated with continuity of service with backwages. The said award was passed on 19.01.1998. The

first respondent filed writ petition in W.P. No. 12960 of 1994 before this Court challenging the said Award of the Labour Court. This Court

dismissed the said writ petition by holding that there is no merits in the writ petition. The said order has become final. However the petitioner is yet

to be re-instated and backwages is also not paid. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the first respondent, the petitioner is not re-instated in

service with backwages and continuity of service, till date.

The first respondent in the counter affidavit stated that after dismissal of the writ petition, the Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai, gave

his opinion on 14.9.2005 stating that it is not the fit case for filing Writ Appeal. Thereafter, the first respondent, without implementing the order of

the Labour Court as confirmed by this Court, has chosen to write a letter to the Director of Animal Husbandry for getting approval in this regard

and for necessary sanction to re-instate the petitioner with backwages and continuity of service. The said action of the first respondent is clearly

unauthorised. The first respondent is bound to implement the said order and there is no justification on the part of the first respondent to address

letter to the Director of Animal Husbandry or to the Government when the Court has passed orders granting relief to the petitioner. It is the duty on

the part of the first respondent to accept and implement the order of the Labour Court as confirmed by this Court. The delay committed by the first

respondent after the opinion given by the Government Pleader on 14.09.2005, cannot be appreciated and condoned.

In fact the said attitude of the first respondent in not implementing the Court order is in violation of Rule 20(3)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu

Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The said rule reads as follows:

Rule 20(3)(iv) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him evade the

responsibility devolving legitimately on him and seek instruction from, or approval, of a superior authority when such instruction or approval is not

necessary in the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.

From the above rule it is evident that the Government Servant shall not evade his responsibility on the ground of obtaining instructions or approval

from the superior authority, when such instructions or approval is not necessary in the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities. Thus,

in effect the inaction of the first respondent in not implementing the orders of the Court is a statutory violation.

In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner in service in terms of the award of the of the Labour Court as

confirmed in W.P. No. 12960 of 1994 dated 26.7.2005. within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The first respondent is directed to calculate the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date of re-instatement

and pay the same with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 14.9.2005. The said arrears of salary with interest shall by paid by the first respondent to

the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the delayed implementation of the Labour court

award as confirmed by this Court on 26.7.2005, interest at 7.5% shall be paid to the petitioner from 14.9.2005. It is open to the Department to

recover the interest amount payable to the petitioner, from the salary of the concerned officer of the first respondent, if it is warranted. As the

petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition, he incurred expenses and hence the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The cost

amount shall also be paid by the first respondent to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.