THANTHAI PERIYAR POKKUVARATHU KAZHAGHA OOZHIYAR SANGAM Vs. MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of D. Hariparandhaman advocate for the petitioner and of Sri L. G. Saha Devan, advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following order: the question raised by the petitioner association in this writ petition is whether the notice issued by the respondent- Corporation, inviting tenders for awarding the contract of reconditioning work, etc. , to outside contractors, can be interfered with.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by relying upon the decision of this court in Indian Additives Ltd. v. Indian additives Employees Union 2005-I-LLJ-900 (Mad ). On facts, the learned counsel submitted that all along, the respondent had been engaging outside contractors for various works, but by limited tenders, against which the workers have never had any complaints. However, since the volume of the work sought to be allotted on this occasion is huge, the respondent is calling for an open tender. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by this action of the respondent, since the respondent has, categorically stated that no workman will lose his employment because of their decision to award the work to outside contractors. According to him, if the petitioner-association was really aggrieved, their remedy lies under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association submitted that the impugned notice was contrary to the settlement arrived at between the workers and the management and submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in management of karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Staff and Workers' Federation air 1999 SC 1059 : 1999 (2) SCC 687 : 1999-I-LLJ-849, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. According to the learned counsel, there is already a settlement under which the parties had agreed that such work will not be given to contractors. Learned counsel submitted that though the period of the said settlement has come to an end, yet the terms of the settlement will govern the parties until a new settlement comes into existence.