V.VENKATESAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner joined the services of the 3rd respondent society on 1.8.95, the 2nd petitioner joined the services of the 3rd respondent society on

(2.) 8.2000. While functioning as such without giving room for any complaint, the petitioners were sought to be retrenched on the ground that they had become surplus and, accordingly, they were retrenched vide order dated 30.7.02, which order was challenged before this Court and this Court had granted stay of the said order and by virtue of the said stay order, the petitioners were continuing in service. In the interregnum, the petitioners filed petition before the Inspector of Labour to confirm their services in view of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act and the said authority, by order dated 30.9.02, confirmed their services. 2. In the meanwhile, proposal emanated from the 2nd respondent for making the services of the petitioners confirmed. The petitioners also submitted representation. Inspite of the abovesaid order, as also the proposal of the 2 nd respondent and their representation, the services of the petitioners were discontinued against which the petitioners preferred W.P. No.21090/08 and 21093/08 praying to implement the order passed by the Inspector of Labour. This Court, vide order dated 28.8.08 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a particular time frame. Once again, proposal emanated from the 2nd respondent for the continuance of the services of the petitioners. However, inspite of the same, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order on 21.1.11. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions as raised in the grounds in support of his plea, laid emphasis that inspite of a positive proposal emanating from the 2 nd respondent consecutively, the 1st respondent has not taken note of the same in proper perspective. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Inspector of Labour has also not been considered in the light of the proposal of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, while sought to sustain the impugned order, however, submitted that this Court, may permit the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law on the basis of the order passed by the Inspector of Labour.