S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.@mdashThis writ appeal is preferred against the order dated January 7, 1993, in W.P. No. 2123 of 1989 of a learned single Judge of this Court.
2. The writ petition was filed for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 1271 (Industries) dated December 9, 1988, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Madras 600 009, and to issue direction to give suitable posts and salary in the Government departments, and in public sector undertakings, commensurate with the posts and salary drawn by the petitioners while employed in Tansi Structurals, Ambattur, Madras.
3. The claim of the petitioners is based upon a direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3801 of 1986. This direction has been issued by the Supreme Court when the petitioners challenged the retrenchment from Tansi Structurals, Ambattur, a unit of Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Corporation Limited. The retrenchment was pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 822, dated August 30, 1987, of the Tamil Nadu Government deciding to close down Tansi Structurals at Ambattur in Chengleput District and issue of a notice to the said effect on October 25, 1985. The writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 1654 of 1988 challenging the said Government order which was dismissed on April 8, 1986. After failing in W.A. No. 583 of 1986, C.A. No. 3801 of 1986 was filed in the Supreme Court by them and as stated earlier, only in the said application, on November 20, 1987, the Supreme Court issued a direction which is as follows :
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties, including learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, without going into the finer aspects of this case we feel that the State Government and the respondent-Corporation should be able to find some employment to the 159 workmen involved in this case within three months in any establishment of theirs or any other public sector unit situated in any part of Tamil Nadu notwithstanding the settlement arrived at already since we feel that this is a human problem. The petitioners workers say that they are willing to work in any part of Tamil Nadu wherever they may be asked to work and they do not claim any other relief against the respondent-Corporation or the State Government. We direct that this order shall be complied with faithfully. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
4. Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, and after getting an extension of time for implementation of the order of the Supreme Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 1271 (Industries) (SIH 1) Department, dated December 9, 1988, containing directions to provide jobs to 159 workers of the erstwhile Tansi Structurals, Ambattur, Madras, in various corporations/public sector undertakings.
5. The contention before the learned single Judge by the petitioners'' counsel was that the order of the Supreme Court was not complied with in substance and spirit. The appellants were not given appropriate posts and salary commensurate with the posts and salary they were holding and getting at the time of retrenchment. It was further contended that about 63 erstwhile workers of Tansi Structurals were provided with employment with salaries ranging from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,500. But in respect of others they were given meager salaries, thereby even among the same group there was discrimination. After consideration of the arguments advanced by learned a counsel for the petitioners and judgments cited by him, the learned single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition. Only after the writ appeal was admitted, the 16 corporations under whom the appellants were given employment were added as parties.
6. Miss Vaigai, counsel for the appellants took us through a chart containing the details of 47 persons, with whom only the writ appeal is o concerned and argued that persons who were getting more than Rs. 1,000 and odd were given only Rs 300 to Rs.400 and employed as trainees, watchmen, helpers, etc. She further submitted that some appellants were directed to make a refundable deposit which was not possible for them at all. She has also cited a number of authorities in support of her contention that the appellants ought to have been provided with posts and salaries similar to those which they o were holding in Tansi before closure.
7. Pursuant to a direction from the court, the various corporation., have sent the details and particulars of about 47 persons with reference to whom the complaints are made in the writ appeal. Communications received from the various corporations by Tansi were furnished to us. Two charts also have been enclosed to the communication received from the various corporations giving particulars about the abovesaid 47 persons. Before we consider the arguments of counsel for the appellants, it will be better to refer to these communications from the corporations as well as the chart of appellants, containing their grievances.
8. In the letter dated November 16, 1995, of Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, we find that two persons, P. Desingh and P. V. Raghupathy, SI. Nos. 21 and 22 of the appellants'' chart are referred to, P. Desingh was appointed as an office assistant and his present emoluments are Rs. 2,2951/-. As regards P. V. Raghupathy, we find that he did not report for duty at all. Similarly, in the letter dated November 18, 1995, from Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Limited, we find nine persons were allotted to this corporation. Had they continued in the corporation their present emoluments would have been Rs. 3,136.50, etc. But out of these nine persons, we find that G. Sivakumar and T. Rangam who were issued with appointment orders dated February 1, 1989, did not report for duty. Hence, their appointment orders were cancelled. A. Elumalai was removed from service for unauthorized long absence. These three persons, namely A. Elumalai is shown in SI. NO. 38 and G. Sivakumar is shown in SI. No. 7, while T. Rangam is shown in SI. No. 22, four persons continued in the service and their emoluments are stated to be ranging from Rs. 3,078 to Rs. 3,136. One has been transferred and another died. In the letter dated November 16, 1995, from Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Limited, details of about three persons, M. Govindasamy, R. Kuppan and K. Dhakshinamurthy, have been given. We find that even though M. Govindasamy continued in service and is getting a total emoluments of Rs. 3,344. K. Dhakshinamurthy failed to report for duty. R. Kuppan who was given an appointment on a consolidated stipend of Rs. 300 did not report after getting the appointment order. It is stated that if he had continued, he would have drawn about Rs. 3,000 per month as on date. R. Kuppan is shown in SI. No. 37, while Dhakshinamurthy is shown in SI. No. 36, in the Appellants'' chart. From the letter dated November 17, 1995, from Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Limited, we find that appointments were given to D. Prakasam SI. No. 1 and G. Jayaraman SI. No. 2. But D. Prakasam failed to report for duty before August 31, 1989, the last date for reporting. Similarly, G. Jayaraman also did not report for duty within the time after receiving the appointment order. D. Prakasam and G. Jayaraman are shown in SI. Nos. 32 and 35 in the appellants'' chart. From the letter dated November 16, 1995 from Arasu Rubber Corporation, we find that G. Natarajan and P. Kannappan were given appointment. Though G. Natarajan joined before December 20, 1988, he left for o Madras on the same day. P. Kannappan who came to Mytar Office went away without attending. The above said persons P. Kannappan and G. Natarajan are shown in SI. Nos. 33 and 34. In the letter dated November 17, 1995, from Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd, we find that M. Jayaraman, P. Vedha, M. Varadhan and R. Raghavan were given appointment orders. Among them, M. Jayaraman remained absent unauthorisedly from September 13, 1989, and after issue of notice he was terminated from service. Excepting M. Jayaraman, others continued in the service of the corporation. M Varadhan absorbed along with Jayaraman was confirmed in service on July 11, 1990 and his present emoluments are Rs. 3,247.25. M. Jayaraman is shown in SI. No. 21 in the appellants'' chart. In the letter dated November 16, 1995, from Tamilnadu Magnesite Limited, particulars of V. Mani, E. Varadarajan, A. Ganesan and K. G. Krishnan are found. It is stated that E. Varadarajan did not report for duty. A. Ganesan and K. G. Krishnan though visited the mine failed to attend duty. K. G. Krishnan failed to report for duty but submitted letter on September 28, 1989 requesting for providing employment. As he failed to report for duty within time and submitted letter only on September 26, 1989 a report was sent to the Government in this regard. Ganesan and Krishnan are shown in SI. Nos. 5 and 6 under the caption "Allotted Corporation did not give job" in the appellants'' chart. Nesamani Transport Corporation Ltd, in its letter dated November 18, 1995 gives particulars about four persons, namely K. Gnanasekaran, A. Murthi, M. Ramadas and S. Krishnamurthi. It is stated that out of the above four employees, S. Krishnamurthi reported for duty on October 16, 1989 and he was absorbed in the cadre. His present salary is Rs. 3,216. The other three persons failed to join duty. They are shown in SI. Nos. 23, 30 and 31 in the appellants'' chart.
9. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that most of the appellants either failed to join duty or left the service after joining. Probably, they were under the impression as is seen now that they would be paid only Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 per month for some years to come. The facts go to show that persons were appointed as watchmen, helper, trainee, etc, were subsequently confirmed and they are now paid from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000 per month as per the particulars furnished by the Corporations.
10. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the erstwhile employees were entitled to be appointed and paid salaries as on date when they left the services of the Tansi. In support of this argument, the judgment of the Supreme Court is repeatedly relied on. The Supreme Court has issued a direction to find some employment to the workmen. The direction is not to provide same kind of employments and pay the salaries which the workmen were getting at the time of closure of the Tansi Structurals. In the first instance the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 116 Industries (SIN-I) Department, dated February 4, 1988, directing the corporations and Government departments to re-employ these workers. But the Government received replies from the corporations stating that there were no vacancies and hence they were not in a position to comply with the direction of the Government. Thereafter, the Government moved the Supreme Court and got extension of time to find out employments for them. Once again the Government issued Specific directions to various corporations to re-employ these persons. That apart as contended by the Government pleader, Mr. P. Rajamanickam and Mr. Vijay Narayanan, representing the Government and Pandian Transport Corporation, respectively, the erstwhile Tansi employees availed of the benefit of voluntary retirement offered to them and as provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, from the facts narrated above, some of the erstwhile Tansi employees, who took the appointments under the various corporations and continued in service are getting decent salary of Rs. 3,000 and above per month. Therefore, in these circumstances, the contention that they should be provided with suitable employment equal to the one which they were holding is untenable. Further, out of 151 workers, only 47 workers are now complaining. Therefore it goes without saying that even according to the petitioners the Government has taken care to comply with the demands of the other 104 erstwhile employees of the Tansi Structurals. It is also the admitted case that 67 persons were given employment with Rs. 1,000 to start and they have no grievance. Therefore, we have to come to the conclusion that the Government has complied with the Supreme Court''s direction and its bona fides cannot be disputed at all in this regard.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted the following authorities in support of her contention that suitable alternative employments should have been provided commensurate with their previous employment :
(1)
(2)
(3) Gurmail Singh v. State of punjab, 1993 82 FJR 332 (SC).
(4)
(1) G. Govinda Rajulu v. A. P. State Construction Corporation Ltd., In this case, the services of the employees were terminated on account of closure. The closure itself was challenged and the Supreme Court directed to continue the employees on the same terms and conditions, either in the Government Department or any other Government corporations. But, in the direction issued in the case on hand, there are no such words "on the same terms and conditions".
(2) P. K. Chinnasami v. Government of Tamil Nadu. The facts of the said case are entirely different from this case. In the said case, the appellant, an Assistant Engineer confirmed in that post was redesignated as Regional Transport Officer. The High Court in the first instance issued direction to count the seniority from July, 1970, and consider his claim for promotion. That was not done in that case. Without complying with the direction of the High Court his juniors were promoted. The appellant once again filed the writ petition. While the said writ petition was pending, the appellant went on leave for 46 days and returned to join duty. Instead of providing him with work, the Government did not give posting and work commensurate with his status. Only in such circumstances the direction was issued to provide posting and work commensurate with his status.
(3) Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, This is a case where there was a transfer of undertaking. But the present case is not such a one. It was a closure and on humanitarian grounds the erstwhile employees were directed to be given some employment.
(4) N. T. C (South Maharashtra) Ltd. v. R. M. M. Sangh, The point involved in the said case was whether the workers ceased to be workmen of the respective textile mills after they were taken over by the N.T.C. On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court has held that, in fact, transfer of management in that case has not resulted in termination of contract of the workmen. Therefore, we are not in a position to agree with the contention raised by the appellants'' counsel for the erstwhile employees of the Tansi Structurals that they should be given postings and salary commensurate with the posting and salary they were holding while they were in the Tansi Structurals service.
12. The next contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that there was discrimination among the persons re-employed. Some were paid salaries ranging from Rs. 1,100 to Rs. 1,200 and others paid with small amounts like Rs. 300 to Rs. 400. This argument also has no substance. All these persons were reemployed by different corporations in different categories. All of them were not employed in the same category or corporation. Depending upon the various factors prevailing in each corporation, the re-employments have been given to the erstwhile Tansi Structurals employees. Therefore, it cannot be contended that they should be uniformly treated wherever they were employed. The Government of Tamil Nadu as well as the various corporations have provided employments depending upon the contingencies. In such circumstances, there is difference in salaries, etc. Therefore, the contention that there has been discrimination among them is untenable.
13. Yet another contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that the employees were directed to make deposits ranging from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000. It is represented that these deposits were refundable and only in the interest of the employees for getting admissions for their wards in the medical and engineering colleges established and administered by the Corporations or Boards. Even though these Corporations are impleaded now in this appeal, at this juncture, no direction can be issued in this regard, because as stated earlier the appeal is confined only to 47 employees and they have not joined duty and are not in employment. Further, it is also not possible after a lapse of such a long time, to issue any direction in this regard
14. The Government pleader as well as counsel for the eleventh respondent submitted that the appellants as well as the other employees voluntarily retired from the Tansi Structurals Services. Further, they have also been paid the compensation as provided under Sections 25-N(9) and 25-0(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that writ appeal has to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
