K. MOOKKANDI Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he was engaged as a Contract Labourer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from 01.11.1984, onwards. On completion of five years of service as Contract Labourer, in the year 1990, he was paid ex -gratia by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thereafter, The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Ramanathapuram, by his proceedings in Ku.Aa. No. 015384/736/U.Ni.A/Ni.Bi.2/U, 1/Ko.Masdoor Grade -II, dated 15.12.2005, absorbed the petitioner as Grade -II Masdoor. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by his proceedings in KU. No. Se.Po/Vini/Para/Nipi/U.1/Ko.Mas/A. No. 1544/06, dated 28.04.2006, called for explanation from the petitioner as to why the said order of absorption, dated 15.12.2005, should not be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for such absorption. It was stated in the said show cause notice that those contract labourers who were engaged on or before 19.01.1988 alone were entitled for absorption; whereas the petitioner was engaged as contract labourer only on 05.10.1988 and thus he was not entitled for absorption. Disputing the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.05.2006 stating that he was engaged as contract labourer from 01.11.1984 onwards and not from 05.10.1988 and therefore his absorption was legally right. Not having been satisfied with the said explanation, the first respondent by his proceedings in Ku.Aa. No. 0543/765 -1/U Ni A/Nipi 2/U Tha.1/Ko.Masdoor II Grade (Trainee) 06, dated 05.07.2006, cancelled the earlier order, dated 15.12.2005 and thus cancelled the absorption. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and I have also perused the records, carefully.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the certificate produced by the petitioner, issued by the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, are all bogus and forged documents. It is further stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.05.1968; whereas it is claimed that at the age of 16 years on 01.11.1984, he was engaged as a contract labourer. It is stated that the petitioner would not have been engaged as a contract labourer when he was a minor. It is further stated that the document showing payment of ex -gratia to the petitioner on his completing five years of service is only the xerox copy and the same also cannot be relied on. Thus, according to the counter, the petitioner was engaged as contract labourer only with effect from 05.10.1988 for which there are documents and therefore he is not entitled for absorption. Thus, according to the respondents, the cancellation of the absorption order is right, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.