TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD WORKERS FEDERATION Vs. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows :THEse Writ Petitions and WMPs coming on for orders as to admission on Thursday August 31, 2000 upon perusing, the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Arunachalam advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan, Additional Advocate General for Ms. Sudarshanasundar advocate for the first Respondent and of Mr. A. Paramasivam, Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 and 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order :In W.P. No. 826 of 1998, the petitioner, a Registered Association has prayed for the issue of a writ certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the first respondent-Board in No. 998/Estt(Per)/A 198-1 dated January 9, 1998 passed by the first respondent and quash the same insofar as the first respondent had ordered investment of the ad hoc payment of a portion of the arrears viz., Rs. 2000/- in the G.P.F. account of the employees and direct the respondents to pay the said arrears in cash.This Court ordered notice of motion on March 18, 1998 and the writ petition came to be listed on various dates.W.P. Nos. 4389 of 2000 has been filed by the very same petitioner-Registered Association representing the workmen employed in the first respondent-Board praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the Board Proceedings in B.P.Ms. No. 25, TWAD (Estt. Per) WING, dated February 4, 2000, passed by the first respondent as well as G.O.Ms. No. 440, dated October 8, 1999, passed by the respondent-State Government, quash the portion of the above orders in so far as they purport to impound the arrears of D.A. for the period from July 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999 and credit the same in the G.P.F. Account and consequently direct the respondents to pay the said arrears forthwith to all the employees of the said Board.Heard Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Mr. T. R. Rajgopalan, learned Additional Advocate General and senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions.

(2.) IN fact, this Court following the orders passed in an identical writ petition, passed orders after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. At that stage, the learned counsel for the respondents filed W.M.P. No. 9364 in W.P. No. 826 of 1998 to set aside the order dated March 21, 2000 passed in W.P. No. 826 of 1998, as the counsel for the Respondent could not be present at the hearing. This Court while following the earlier orders allowed the writ petition and issued directions. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, the order dated March 21, 2000 was recalled with the consent of the counsel for either side and the matter was taken up on August 31, 2000 for fresh hearing.Mr. S. Arunachalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the earlier pronouncements of the Division Bench of this Court as well as an order passed by this Court in an identical situation in W.P. No. 10474 of 1999 etc., batch, dated August 11, 1999 in Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees and others v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and also the order passed in W.P. No. 9903 of 1999 on September 28, 1999 in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Workers Federation v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and others.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said pronouncements squarely applies to the facts of the present case and no further arguments are required. Ms. S. Sudarshanasundar, and Ms. Malarvizhi Udayakumar, sought to contend that the said earlier pronouncements of this Court if followed would cause undue hardship and financial constraints on the respondent-TWAD Board and that the respondent is bound by the directions issued by the State Government and they cannot be compelled to pay the arrears, except in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government.According to the learned counsel for the respondents if a direction is given for lump sum payment as ordered by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, the financial burden of the respondent-TWAD Board will be heavy and it will be in financial difficulties.This Court pointed out that it would not be proper for this Court to deviate from the earlier pronouncements as this has to be consistent and also this Court is bound by the earlier Division Bench pronouncement as well. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents took time and ultimately represented that the learned Additional Advocate General had been engaged in this case specially to appear on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly this Court after recalling the earlier orders heard the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General, while making his submissions has to necessarily state that the earlier pronouncements of this Court has to be followed and has also fairly stated that the earlier orders passed by this Court are to be followed in these two writ petitions as well.