S MANICKAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT; MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU MAGNEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONTE LIMITED AND INDIA MAGNEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONTE PRODUCTS LIMITED, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records relating to order No.1(2)/P&A/7313/98-99 dated 26.11.1998 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to retransfer/absorb the petitioner in the services of the second respondent with all benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Project Engineer (Mechanical) under the second respondent company, which is wholly owned by Government of Tamil Nadu. Third respondent is a Joint Venture company. The second respondent was formed under G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 10.1.1979. The services of the petitioner had been confirmed with effect from 1.10.1985 under the second respondent. While the matter stood thus, the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.855 dated 16.8.1990 decided to have a joint venture with M/s. Khaitan Supermag Limited (KSL) wherein the second respondent's share is 26%,KSL share is 25% and the balance 49% is by general public. According to the petitioner, the second respondent retains the overall control of the third respondent joint venture company being the largest shareholder and also by holding the post of Chairman on the Board of Directors. After formation of the third respondent company, the petitioner was transferred to serve under the said company. Subsequently, the petitioner made several representations to bring him back to the second respondent. It was pointed out by the petitioner that there was lot of disparity in the salary structure payable to the employees. Subsequently, the representation of the petitioner was rejected under the impugned letter dated 24/26.11.1998, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner did not have any lien on the second respondent and had no right to claim reversion from third respondent to second respondent.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein apart from raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition, it has been indicated that the petitioner had not been posted under the third respondent on deputation and the petitioner did not retain any lien over the post holding under the second respondent. Since there was no further necessity for the second respondent to retain the petitioner, it has been proposed to place his services under the third respondent permanently and the petitioner had agreed to such and the petitioner was permanently transferred to joint venture company on 20.6.1991 and consequently he was relieved from the services of the second respondent on 31.7.1991.