P NATARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had entered service under the State of Tamil Nadu as a Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. Subsequently the Transport Department got merged with Pallavan Transport Corporation and a separate wing called Pallavan Transport Corporation (Express Services) was formed in 1975. Consequently all the employees of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department were required to exercise their option to remain as employee under Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited (Express) or any other Transport Corporation or apt for retrenchment compensation. The petitioner claiming that he was sent on deputation to Pallavan Transport Corporation (Express), did not express option to join the said Corporation as a full-fledged employee and wanted to continue in the Government service and accordingly informed the respondents. At that stage, the second respondent by letter dated 11.1.1978 informed the petitioner that in the absence of any option, he would be deemed to be the employee of Pallavan Transport Corporation (Express Services). The petitioner sent a reply stating that he was prepared to work under the Pallavan Transport Corporation provided he was given the facilities which were available to him in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department or otherwise he may be sent to any other Government Department. By a letter dated 28.1.1980, the petitioner had requested the second respondent to communicate the amount payable to him as retrenchment compensation and other dues and also informed that they did not have right to retrench him from services. However, by letter dated 8.2.1980, the second respondent retrenched the petitioner from service. It is claimed that the petitioner was retrenched from service without complying with the provisions contained in Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. After receipt of the aforesaid order, the petitioner had approached the Conciliation Officer, but the efforts for conciliation failed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.9078 of 2001 for a declaration that the memo dated 8.2.1980 issued by the second respondent was unjust, improper, illegal and void and deemed to continue in service with all benefits. However, the said suit was dismissed by judgment dated 3.12.1983 and thereafter Civil Appeal No.189 of 1990 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the City Civil Court by judgment dated 31.8.1990. At that stage, the petitioner raised I.D.No.246 of 1991 on the ground that the order of termination is in violation of Sections 25F, 25N and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court by award dated 20.1.1994, dismissed the said Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court inter alia came to the conclusion :

(2.) In the present writ petition, it is contended that since retrenchment compensation had not been paid, the order of retrenchment was illegal and void. It has been further contended that without obtaining the prior permission, retrenchment could not have been effected in view of Section 25-N of the Act.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the contentions raised by the petitioner have been specifically denied. It has been stated :