G GOPINATH Vs. MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated December 24, 1992 dismissing Writ Petitions 9135 of 1992, 10318 of 1992, 11302 of 1992 and 9091 of 1992. Writ Petitions 9135, 11302 and 9091 of 1992 have been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus for directing respondents 2 and 3 to transfer the appellants temporarily from List-A to List-B as Supervisors and Record Clerks till such time they are reallocated to any other registered employer. The prayer in Writ Petition 10318 of 1992, out of which Writ Appeal 360 of 1993 arises, is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in Writ Appeal 360 of 1993 bearing No. 131/91 GP4 dated July 7, 1992 and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to transfer the appellant in W. A. No. 360/93 to List-B as Supervisor temporarily till such time he is reallocated to any other registered employer.

(2.) THE case of the appellants in W. A. 119, 360 and 799/93 in their respective writ petitions is that they were employed under M/s. K. P. V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther and Company (Private) Limited the 4th respondent in Writ Appeals 119 and 360 of 1993, as Supervisors and Receipt Clerks, that the 4th respondent has expressed his inability to continue with the same number of employees as the volume of his business as a stevedore with the Madras Port Trust has fallen down and that the 4th respondent retrenched the senior employees contrary to the provisions of Sections 25ff and 25g of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the above circumstances, it is the further case of the appellants in W. As. 119, 360 and 799 that under the provisions of the Madras Unregistered Dock General Pool Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), the Madras Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') is bound to make provision for the employment of the appellants and that they should make allocations accordingly and till such allocation is made, the Board is bound to transfer the appellants temporarily from List A to List B. The case of the appellants in W. A. 800/93 is that they are the former employees of CM. Natarajan and Brothers, who terminated their services due to the total closure of his stevedoring business, that though the Board by the order dated May 14, 1992 re-allocated them to new listed stevedores, they refused to provide them with the employment, that the Board is bound to place them in List B till they are provided with suitable employment under any listed employer and that the Board in spite of their representations failed to take any action to place them in List B. Respondents 2 and 3 resisted the writ petitions contending that unless a stevedore like the 4th respondent has closed his business, it is not necessary for the Board to make a real-location of the employees of the 4th respondent and that the only right of the appellants is to take appropriate proceedings against their employer-the 4th respondent, challenging the order of retrenchment and seek such reliefs as are available to them in law before the appropriate forum.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitions, took the view that the stevedore-employer cannot seek a mandamus directing the Board to transfer their employees even when the business of such stevedore-employer like the 4th respondent is continued by him, from List A to List B. Nor can an employee who has only been retrenched, claim that he has to be included temporarily in List B in order to be reallocated to some other registered employer, particularly when the petitioners in Writ Petitions 9135, 10318 and 11302 of 1992 have stated that their retrenchment is not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and it is illegal. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellants have also reserved their rights to challenge the orders of their retrenchment in the appropriate forum and in such a case, it is not open to them to claim that they must be treated on par with the employees of an establishment which is closed and reallocated to some other employer. The learned Single Judge also held that the remedy of the appellants is only to take appropriate proceedings against their employer 4th respondent challenging the orders of retrenchment. Taking such a view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed W. P. 9091/92, out of which W. P. 800/93 arises, holding that by valid orders of the Board, the petitioners in W. P. 9091/92 were allotted to new listed employers and if their new employers refused to provide employment to them they must seek their remedies against their new employer and not against the Board. As already stated these writ appeals are directed against the said common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions.