R DEIVASIGAMANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Ramkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Seenivasan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, as well as Mr. S. Sathiyamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined the service of the second respondent Corporation, on 21/8/1981, at the TANSI Foundry and Heavy Machine Shop, Erode, as a Chemist. When he was employed at Erode, his duties and responsibilities included the laboratory and cupola operations and he was also entrusted with the additional responsibilities of watching over the stock position of the materials required for the foundry section and to prepare purchase requisitions for submission to the General Superintendent and also to take follow up action to ensure that three months stock of materials are always kept for the foundry.

(3.) THE petitioner has further stated that he had been transferred to Mettur Dam, along with the post, on 27/4/2000, by an order in Ref. No. 5905/fd1/2000, dated 27. 4. 2000. At Mettur, the petitioner was allotted to the TANSI Structural and Galvanizing Works, pursuant to the request of the Works Manager of the said factory as there was no Chemist in the said factory. The duties and responsibilities that were given to him, as a chemist, included the despatching of the galvanized tower parts to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam, to maintain the stock registered for such despatch, verification of the concentration of Hydrochloric acid, as and when the acid lots are received and the work of carrying out the necessary chemical tests. The petitioner was also asked to attend and to carry out the tests before the despatch of materials to the Electricity Board and also to attend to the pollution equipment maintenance. However, based on the report of Raghavan Committee appointed to study the viability of State Public Sector Enterprises, the Committee of Secretaries made certain recommendations. One of the recommendations was with regard to the closing down of the unviable units stating that the staff and the workers of such units should be redeployed, either in TANSI or in other public sector units/departments. Based on the report of the committee of the Secretaries, the Government had issued G. O. Ms. No. 53, Small Industries (SIE) Department, dated 28. 10. 2000. By the said Government order it was decided to accept the report of the said Committee and it was decided to close seven units. However, the said Government Order was silent with regard to the redeployment of the existing staff and the workers of the closed units. The Government Order, dated 28. 10. 2000, had stated that 72 workers and 102 staff and officers may be relieved under the existing voluntary retirement scheme and those who did not opt for the voluntary retirement scheme were liable to be retrenched.