IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.19482 to 19485 of 2000 Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., (Now known as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division -I)Ltd.,) Bye-pass Road, Madurai – 625 010. ..Petitioner in W.P.No.19482 of 2000 Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., (Now known as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division-I) Ltd.,) No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 043. ..Petitioner in W.P.No.19483 of 2000 Nesamony Transport Corporation Ltd., (Now known as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai Division-III) Ltd.,) Nagercoil – 629 001. ..Petitioner in W.P.No.19484 of 2000 Maruthu Pandiyan Transport Corporation Ltd., (Now known as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-III) Ltd.,) Maruthapathy Managiri Road, Karaikudi – 630 307. ..Petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2000 Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras – 104. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Workmen rep. By its Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Administrative Staff and Unions Federation, Opp. To P.R.C., Bye-pass Road, Madurai – 625 016. ..Respondents in all WPs Prayer : Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in its Award dated 13.5.97 and made in I.D.No.18/91 quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil For Respondents : Mr.S.Kadarkarai for R2 C O M M O N O R D E R The writ petitions are filed by erstwhile Transport Corporations Ltd. viz.,Pandian, Cheran, Nesamony and Maruthu Pandiyan. In all the four writ petitions, the challenge is to the common Award passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.18/91 dated 13.05.1997. 2. The writ petitions were admitted on 21.11.2000. Pending the writ petitions, this Court refused to grant any interim relief on the ground that the Award was came to be challenged after a period of 3 ½ years. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners did not adduce any reason for belatedly coming to this Court. On the short ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected. 4. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned Award had created confusion in the Corporation and as it is not in accordance with law, it is liable to be rejected. 5. On behalf of the contesting respondents, a dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer. On his sending a failure report, the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.37 Labour and Employment Department dated 04.01.1989 referred the issue for adjudication by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal. The issue that was sent for adjudication was 'to formulate an integrated policy for filling up of vacancies in the posts of Supervisory cadre and above.' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Before the Tribunal, pleadings were filed by the respective Trade unions and the Management of the Corporation. On the side of the workmen, 12 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W12 and on the side of the Management, 16 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M16. No oral evidence was let in by either parties. 7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and oral arguments gave its Award. The operative portion of the Award as found in paragraph 13 reads as follows: "13. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that deputation and direct recruitments cannot be stopped, for the reasons stated above. The other two reasons, the distinction between Graduates and NonGraduates and technical and non-technical staff, when all of them are in supervisory cadre is wholly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of the equality clause as held by our Supreme Court in 1987 I LLJ P 115. As per the various settlements the guidelines for promotion to the supervisory and higher posts will be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not on any other basis. In the result, award passed holding that deputation and direct recruitment cannot be stopped, and the promotion to the supervisory cadre and higher posts should be based only on merit-cum-seniority and not on any other basis." 8. With reference to the reservation based on communal roster and direct recruitment for the very same post as well as filling up the post by deputation, the Tribunal did not grant any relief to the workmen. The workmen were not aggrieved hence and they did not challenge the Award. With reference to the promotion, the criteria for promotion was retained as before which was based on merit-cum- seniority only. 9. Therefore, the only contention between the parties seems to be that once cadre is composed of graduates and non-graduates, then no further classification should be made within the same cadre. The Tribunal negatived the plea of the Management in this regard. It is this part of the Award which is under challenge in these writ petitions. 10. The Tribunal placed strong reliance upon a judgment of this Court in R.Ranganathan v. Government of Tamilnadu and others reported in 1985 2 LLJ 124. In that case, this Court in respect of Town and Country Planning Department did not allow the department to fix the ratio between degree and non-degree holders in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Director from among five feeder categories. The Court found that there was no justifiable reason to make further invidious classification. The Court also found that at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ many times, the employee due to poverty would not have pursued degree and the "Chill penury" might have 'repressed their noble rage'. After reaching a particular stage, want of qualification cannot be put against the member of the same class. 11. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and others reported in 1987 1 L.L.J 115. In that judgment in respect of Linemen, the Diploma holders and non-diploma holders formed a common cadre. When further promotion of Line Superintendents arose since classification was made on the basis of additional qualification, the Supreme Court held that the distinction between diploma holders and non-diploma holders performing the same kind of work and duties belong to the common cadre and having a common and joint seniority list should not be divided based upon any further quota. 12. In the present case, it is the workmen who have lost their real demand. In the name of framing an integrated policy for filling up the vacancies, the Department was able to protect not only the quality in terms of recruitment but they also got the benefit of retaining direct recruitment and filling up of posts by deputation. The communal roster as per the constitutional mandate was also protected. It is not clear as to why the Management of the Transport Corporations have challenged this Award, which is really in their favour. Distinction between graduates and non-graduates have been sufficiently explained by the Tribunal in the light of the authoritative decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. 13. Though in the affidavit it was contended those decisions have no application to the facts of the case, the petitioners have failed to explain as to how their stand is supported by their mere assertion. Their attempt to state that the distinction made by them will not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was not accepted by the Tribunal. 14. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well considered Award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras – 104. Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. W.P.Nos.19482 to 19485 of 2000 RV (CO) GSK 04.03.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/