@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashIn all these cases the common point involved is as to whether the respondent Transport Corporations can be directed not
to give the facility of ""On duty"" to any workman and not to pay salary and other benefits to any workman without allocating or extracting work for
the category to which they belong to. The further question is, as to whether the direction can be issued to the concerned Transport Corporations
not to provide light duty or other duty to workman other than the medically declared invalid persons.
2. The petitioners are employees Union of various Transport Corporations, viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division I)
Ltd., formerly Pandian Roadways Corporation and Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai 2.
3. According to the petitioner Unions, the respondent Corporation have fixed duties and responsibilities to the workmen based on their category.
The scale of pay and other conditions of services are governed by tripartite settlement signed from time to time. The complaint of the petitioners
Union is that the workman belonging to the Ruling party Union, viz., Anna Thozhilalar Sangam Peravai, shortly A.T.P. are extended with ""On duty
facility and they are paid salaries and other benefits without assigning or extracting any work. These workmen even though are not doing any work,
they are given attendance for all the 30 days in a month and without extracting work by obtaining their signatures in the concerned registers as if
they have worked. The petitioners Union have also categorised so many persons, who have been receiving such extra and illegal privileges.
According to the petitioners Union these are unfair and arbitrary facilities given against the public interest. The petitioners Union has made a
demand that such facility should be withdrawn. The said practice is questioned in these writ petitions.
4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. While denying the allegations raised by the petitioners Union, the respondent Transport
Corporations would submit that no employee of the Corporation is paid without allocating or extracting any work from him. The respondents
would state that after 01.09.1983 till 01.09.1998, the convention followed was that the representatives of the six federations, viz., Anna
Thozhirsanga Peravai, Labour Progressive Federation, Centre of Indian Trade Unions, Indian national Trade Union Congress, All India Trade
Union Congress and Hindu Mazhur Sabha, who were the authorised representatives of all the employees of the State Transport Corporation in
Tamil Nadu and accordingly many of the office bearers of the Central Trade Unions were permitted to give attendance without themselves actually
present at the work spot on the ground that they must be in a position to attend the relevant works for the maintenance of cordial relationship
between the Management of all STUs and the workmen in general. The respondent would submit that the petitioners Union has not at all raised
any objection for such kind of facilities being extended to Federation representatives till they filed the present writ petitions. Subsequently, by virtue
of the order in the batch of writ petitions, to select the Federation representatives, the number of representatives to hold negotiations for the
purpose of settlement talks was reduced from 6 to 4 and the petitioners Union has never objected to the respondent Corporation giving attendance
facility to the Federation Union members. Therefore, it is not correct to state that ""On duty"" facility is extended for the first time.
4(a). It is also specifically stated that in respect of 9 persons mentioned by the writ petitioners for having given the said facilities, 4 persons have
been performing full shift duties on all the working days in a month and they have been attending duties which carry more responsibilities like, crew
duty posting, monitoring movements of buses from Branch office to Bus stand and back, for safeguarding the collection/financial interests of the
Corporation. In respect of the other 5 persons, viz., M.R. Karruppiah, M. Chokkan, S.P. Thangam, P. Karnan and N. Marimuthu, they have
been regularly attending duties and they were also permitted to attend Union work as they were elected representatives of the Federation. It is the
case of the respondent Corporation that even some of the deponents of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners were also permitted to avail
the facility of leaving the work spot as and when they choose to make representation to the Unit Officers, etc. Thiru V. Pitchai, a representative of
the Central Trade Union/Federation has availed such facility on various occasions. It is also stated that the General Secretary of the Arasu
Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam, petitioner in W.P. No. 2142 of 2002 was elected as the President of the P.R.C. Employees Co-operative
Stores and based on his representation he was given facility of light duty, where there may not have full time working during the entire shift hours so
that he can attend the work of P.R.C. Stores and he need not be present at the working spot. It is also stated that among the 51 employees, 18
employees'' are attending to Qther duties like Attender, Cashiers, Traffic Regulators, Office Clerks, etc. and among the 18 employees 6 belong to
the petitioners Union.
4(b). Metropolitan Transport Corporation has also filed counter affidavit. It is clearly stated in the counter affidavit that no ""On duty"" facility has
been extended to the Ruling party Union, viz., Anna Thozhirsanga Peravai. According to the respondent, the petitioner Union has mistaken the
other duty"" as ""on duty"". There are certain individuals who perform other duty like Control Section work, where duties are allotted to various
drivers and conductors when they report for duty. There are other traffic regulated duties like compiling statistical work inside the depot in EDP
section and ticket and cash section and some of them are performing other duties like regulation of passengers in the bus stops, ticket checking,
time keeping, accident investigation work, driving ambulance, assistance to traffic police, schools, issue of students concession passes, driving light
duty vehicles, break down vehicle, lift operating for night shift staffs, store procurement work, mobile squad work, parking vehicle, diesel oil filing
etc. Therefore, these are the other duties, which are mistaken by the petitioner Union as ""on duties"". It is clearly stated that it is only after extracting
the work from the workman as per the Rules and Regulations they are paid and there is no question of ""on duty"" given to any one and the duties
are assigned which are connected with the service of the concerned individuals.
5. Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases would vehemently contend that the very purpose of the
Union is in public interest and not as if the Ruling party Union alone are given such facilities and the petitioners Union are denied.
6. In para 10 of the affidavit filed in W.P. No. 5734 of 2002, the General Secretary of the State Transport Employees Union stated that, ""this type
of facility and privilege is not extended to the workmen or office bearers belong to other unions including our Union."" Therefore, it is clear from the
very affidavit filed by the petitioners Union that certain facilities are denied to them. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
respondent, the mere fact that some of the drivers or conductors are drawn to other duty, which may be light duty, cannot be said to be usurping
of facilities or benefits. Even assuming that such discrimination is shown among the workers of various Unions of the Transport Corporations, they
are certainly entitled to invoke the labour legislation, if it amounts to alteration of service conditions as per Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. In any event, in the light of the specific denial of various allegations raised by the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents and in the absence of any specific instance of such, unatuhorised usurping of privileges and in the circumstances that if such instance
happens, it is always open to such Union to approach the Labour Court under Industrial Disputes Act and it is not proper for this Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to give any such direction. Moreover, as found in the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents, ""on duty"" facilities are not given and it is only the ""other duties"" which are conferred in cases where it is required.
7. As stated above, when a conductor of a bus is directed or allotted for giving season tickets in the counter, it is a light duty, it cannot be said to
be an unauthorised usurping of privilege. In fact, as correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself, this Court has held in
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Anna Staff Union v. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai 10 1998 WLR 146,
wherein R. Jayasimha Babu, J. following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, T.N.E.B. Accounts Subordinate Union v. Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board 1994 (1) LLJ 1128, has clearly held that simply because a person is an officer bearer of Trade Union, he cannot be
absolved from doing his duty and refuse service to the employer for the simple reason that he is an office bearer of the Union. If such a
discrimination is shown, certainly the aggrieved party has right to approach the Labour Court.
8. In view of the above said facts, I am of the considered view that no relief can be given to the petitioners while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
