M.RAJAGOPAL Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as contract labourer under the respondents Electricity Board in the year 1984. For the purpose of absorbing the contract labourers, Hon'ble Justice Khalid commission was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the year 1991 and as per the report of Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission 18,000 contract workers were absorbed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner was one of the contract labourers, but his name was left out. Later by letter No. Adn/A1/F.Q./C.No./98 dated 28.01.1998, a list of left out names were identified and was issued, according to which the petitioner was directed to appear for interview on 08.08.1998 and accordingly he appeared for the interview but was not selected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act , 1981 and obtained an order of permanent status in Permanent Status case No.3444 of 1999 dated 06.12.2000. Thereafter, he was absorbed in the year 2007 in the respondent board as casual labourer and was appointed as Mazdoor during the year 2009. While the matter stood thus, one of his juniors viz., G.Karunakaran whose name was found in the seniority list published by the third respondent who was appointed as a helper in the year 1999. Even though the petitioner is senior to Mr.G.Karunakaran, by-passing his seniority, the said G.Karunakaran was appointed as a helper. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for declaring the promotion given to Mr.G.Karunakaran from the date of the petitioner's promotion is illegal and sought for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Bord to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as helper on par with his junior Mr.G.Karunakaran from the date on which he was promoted and grant backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential and attendant benefits.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has joined services under the Respondents as casual labourer on 07.01.1984, whereas the said Mr.G.Karunakaran, the fifth respondent herein was appointed as casual labourer only on 01.01.1985. The petitioner also appeared for the interview on 08.08.1998, but was left out and not absorbed in the Electricity Board. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to promotion in the year 1991 itself, as his name was included in the list submitted before Justice Kalid Commission by the Union and Management. However, without considering the seniority list he was absorbed only in the year 2007, whereas the said Karunakaran who was appointed as a helper in the year 1998 and was junior in the list produced by the third respondent was given benefit of appointment from the year 1998 and therefore he prayed that the petitioner should also be considered on par with with his junior and all attendant benefits be given to him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would contend that originally the petitioner had taken a stand that he was a contract labourer and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the respondents have considered the issues relating to contract labourers and absorbed them from the year 1991 to 1994. The petitioner was not selected by the Commission or absorbed. A report was submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the same. Those who were not selected by Hon'ble Justice Khalid commission have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a contempt petition was also filed in Contempt Petition (c) No.357/93. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 15.02.1999 has closed the contempt petition as the process was completed. However, for the persons who have approached the Commissions of Labour, the issue was left open to them to redress their grievance before the High Court of Madras by filing appropriate proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of that order. The ban imposed on the respondents not to make appointment by its order dated 19.01.1995 was also vacated. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim seniority, having lost before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for absorption in the year 1999.