1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.319 of 2011 V.Raju : Petitioner / Appellant Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, 42, Thambu Sami Salai, Chennai 10. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Near Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai 20. 3.The Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Cap Storage, Kappalur, Madurai District. 4.M.Paraman : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.2182 of 2009 on the file of this Court. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a wirt of certioraified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.63/924/2006 dated 26.2.2009 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the work performed by the petitioner as Maistry in the third respondent cap storage. For Appellant : Mrs.Nirmala Rani For Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents 1to 3 : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader For Respondent 4 : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 13.09.2010 passed in W.P.(MD).No.2182 of 2009. 2. The said Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.02.2009, whereby the appellant herein was discharged from the post of Maistry on completion of 58 years. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said order dated 26.02.2009 was passed by the Civil Supplies Corporation. As far as the Civil Supplies Corporation is concerned, there is no employer and employee relationship, consequently, the order dated 26.02.2009, discharging the appellant from the post of Maistry is without jurisdiction. However, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that there is neither any settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nor any award passed in favour of the appellant granting him employment status and protection of his tenure and also on the ground that if the workman wants to safeguard his interest, he must have moved an appropriate Court for determining his right under law. In the absence of any right flowing from any enactment, the appellant cannot maintain the Writ Petition solely on the ground that the respondents – Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation are wholly owned by the State Government. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the Civil Supplies Corporation comes under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is maintainable. In our considered opinion, as far as the order under challenge in the Writ Petition is concerned, it is an order discharging the appellant from executing the work as Maistry. As far as the Civil Supplies Corporation is concerned, the persons, whose names have been notified in the list alone, can be allowed to engage for loading and unloading work and also as Maistry and others cannot be allowed even to enter into the same. It is not in dispute that the appellant had not completed the age of 58 years. Under such circumstances, when the notified names of the employees alone to be engaged for loading and unloading work with the Civil Supplies Corporation and also as Maistry, certainly, the Civil Supplies Corporation has got right to pass orders discharging any worker, who had crossed 58 years of age. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.627 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam and got a decree in favour of him will not hold good, for the reason, the decree dated 30.04.1998 was passed as early as 1998. Basing on the above decree alone, the appellant cannot be allowed to contend that till his last breath, he should be permitted to continue as a Maistry or as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 worker of the Civil Supplies Corporation. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, 42, Thambu Sami Salai, Chennai 10. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Near Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai 20. 3.The Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Cap Storage, Kappalur, Madurai District. +1cc to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan Advocate, Sr.No.8284 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.319 of 2011 25.03.2011 Nb SMA/09.06.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/