IRUDAYARAJ Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER (PERSONNEL).

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming himself to be a contract labourer from 1984 to 1991 in Mettur Thermal Power Station, not regularised in the Electricity Board and also as one of the employees of the Union, found to be entitled for permanent appointment, as helper, the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint him as Helper, pursuant to the order in L1/72364/97, dated 07.08.1998 of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.

(2.) According to the petitioner, pursuant to the report of Honourable Justice Khalid, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, the Selection Committee, consisting of the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Mettur Thermal Power Station, third respondent herein and three union representatives, has been constituted to identify the contract labourers served in Mettur Thermal Power Station for absorption in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Pursuant to the notice, dated 11.04.1996, issued by the third respondent, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 17.04.1996 and submitted documentary evidence to substantiate that he had worked as contract labourer in Mettur Thermal Power Station. The Engineer, representing the Board, did not find the petitioner fit for absorption, as he was not working at the time of interview. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, through the Central Organisation of the Electricity Employees, affiliated to CITU. After considering the representation made by both sides, the Commissioner of Labour has passed an order, dated 07.08.1998, directing the Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, first respondent herein, to appoint the petitioner as Helper in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

(3.) According to the petitioner, an order, dated 29.09.1998, was issued by the first respondent, appointing him as helper and he was allocated to the Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem, second respondent herein. The second respondent was also directed to issue appropriate posting orders. Thereafter, the second respondent has sent a letter, dated 10.09.1999/21.09.1999 to the Superintending Engineer (Civil), Mettur Thermal Power Station, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam, third respondent herein, stating that since there was no uniformity in the name of the petitioner in the documents submitted by him and therefore, action could not be pursued and if the petitioner submits documents, containing the same name, i.e., Thiru. Irudayaraj alias Raju, then it would enable them to take further action.