IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:-08-12-2005 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Appeal Nos. 2985, 2986, 3923 to 3927 of 2003, 118 to 122, 291 to 295, 1059 to 1064, 1065 to 1069 of 2004, W.A.SR No. 40538/2005, and Writ Petition Nos. 31148, 31378 to 31383, 31430 to 31433, 31450, 31461, 31499 to 31504, 31534 to 31539, 33592 to 33601, 33616, 33617, 33674 to 33679, 33680, 33681, 33685 to 33687, 33739 to 33745, 33840 to 33845, 33846, 33870 to 33876, 34575, 35006 to 35016, 35039 to 35045, 37840 to 37844 of 2005, and W.A.M.P.Nos. 4717, 4718, 6419 to 6423/2003, 182 to 186, 476 to 480, 1908 to 1913, 1915 to 1919/2004, 3810/2005; and W.P.M.P.Nos. 34126, 37479, 37955 to 37965, 37994 to 38000, 40516 to 40520/2005. M. Sekaran ... Appellant in W.A.2985/03 A. Kathiresan ... Appellant in W.A.2986/03 R. Venkatraman ... Appellant in W.A.3923/03 A. Selvam ... Appellant in W.A.3924/03 P. Saravanan ... Appellant in W.A.3925/03 G. Mayilsamy ... Appellant in W.A. 3926/03 N. Prakash ... Appellant in W.A. 3927/03 Murugesan ... Appellant in W.A. 118/04 K. Thangavel ... Appellant in W.A. 119/04 K. Thamarai Kannan ... Appellant in W.A. 120/04 Utharaj ... Appellant in W.A. 121/04 K. Venkatachalam ... Appellant in W.A. 122/04 P. Ravi ... Appellant in W.A. 291/04 Gopalsamy ... Appellant in W.A. 292/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thangavel ... Appellant in W.A. 293/04 Shanmugam ... Appellant in W.A. 294/04 Jayaram ... Appellant in W.A. 295/04 Manoharan ... Appellant in W.A. 1059/04 Sriganth ... Appellant in W.A. 1060/04 S. Jothiramalingam ... Appellant in W.A. 1061/04 S. Venkatachalam ... Appellant in W.A. 1062/04 Gopalakrishnan ... Appellant in W.A. 1063/04 P. Subramaniam ... Appellant in W.A. 1064/04 S. Murugesan ... Appellant in W.A. 1065/04 R. Agrasu ... Appellant in W.A. 1066/04 Vengidusamy ... Appellant in W.A. 1067/04 M. Sivakumar ... Appellant in W.A. 1068/04 R. Palanisamy ... Appellant in W.A. 1069/04 VS The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division II, Chennimalai Road, Erode ... Respondent in all the Writ Appeals W.A.SR.40538/05 Metropolitan Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director Formerly known as Metropolitan Transport Corporation Division II Represented by its Managing Director Ayanavaram, Chennai – 23. ... Appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ VS 1. Dr. Ambedkar Transport Corporation Task Force union, represented by its General Secretary , 23 Jeeva Street, Kanndapalayam, Puzhel, Chennai -66 2. The Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 3. The Special Commissioner Employment and Training Department of Employment & Training Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Respondents Petitioners cause title in all wps 1. N. Siva 2. N. Perumal 3. T. Jagan 4. K. Krishnamurthy 5. V. Shanmugasundaram 6. P. Chesilraj 7. K. Sivathanupillai 8. I. Deivasigamani ... Pettioners in WP 31148/05 Sekaran .. Petitioner in WP 31378/05 A. Selvam .. Petitioner in WP 31379/05 Jayaraman .. Petitioner in WP 31380/05 Srikanth .. Petitioner in WP 31381/05 S. Gopalsamy .. Petitioner in WP.31382/05 Thamarikannan .. Petitioner in WP 31383/05 P. Saravanan .. Petitioner in WP 31430/05 A. Kathiresan .. Petitioner in WP 31431/05 M. Sivakumar .. Petitioner in WP 31432/05 Jothi Ramalingam .. Petitioner in WP 31433/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dr. Ambedhkar Transport Corporation Task Force Union, Rep by its General Secretary Reg. No. 5/97/MGR, NO. 84 G.N.T. Road Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066 ... Petitioner in WP 31450/05 Anna Transport Corporaion Indian National Trade Union Congress tozhilalar Nala Sangam Rep by its President NO.122/B Kennedy Nagar Suramangalam Post Salem – 5 .. Petitioner in WP 31461/05 Mayilsamy .. Petitioner in WP 31499/05 Vengidusamy .. Petitioner in WP 31500/05 Uthiraj .. Petitioner in WP 31501/05 R. Shanmugam ...Petitioner in WP 31502/05 R. Jayabalan ...Petitioner in WP 31503/05 Venkatraman ...Petitioner in WP 31504/05 P. Subramanian .. Petitioner in WP 31534/05 Elango ... Petitioner in WP 31535/05 M. Murugesan ... Petitioner in WP 31536/05 K. Venkatachalam .. Petitioner in WP 31537/05 Mohanasundaram .. Petitioner in WP 31538/05 K. Thangavel .. Petitioner in WP 31539/05 C. Nellaraj ... Petitioner in WP 33592/05 Sasikumar .. Petitioner in WP 33593/05 Anilkumar .. Petitioner in WP 33594/05 T. Shyam Suseelan .. Petitioner in WP 33595/05 S. Alagesan .. Petitioner in WP 33596/05 S. Wilson .. Petitioner in WP 33597/05 C. Rajakumar ... Petitioner in WP 33598/05 M. Mohan ... Petitioner in WP 33599/05 C. Raj ... Petitioner in WP 33600/05 C. Rajendran ... Petitioner in WP 33601/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ K. Kothandaraman ... Petitioner in WP 33616/05 K.V. Ramesh ... Petitioner in WP 33617/05 S. Murugesan ... Petitioner in WP 33674/05 K.P. Selvaraj ... Petitioner in WP 33675/05 P. Palaniappan ... Petitioner in WP 33676/05 S. Velusamy .. Petitioner in WP 33677/05 K. Thangavel .. Petitioner in WP 33678/05 A.M. Saravanakumar ... Petitioner in WP 33679/05 Mohanraj .. Petitioner in WP 33680/05 Venkidusubramaniam ... Petitioner in WP 33681/05 S. Ravichandran .. Petitioner in WP 33685/05 P. Subramaniam ... Petitioner in WP 33686/05 P.P. Murugan ... Petitioner in WP 33687/05 P. Velusamy ... Petitioner in WP 33739/05 G. Balamurugan ... Petitioner in WP 33740/05 R. Balusamy ... Petitioner in WP 33741/05 P. Ravichandran ... Petitioner in WP 33742/05 D. Palanisamy ... Petitioner in WP 33743/05 T. Palanisamy ... Petitioner in WP 33744/05 K.K. Bhagavathy ... Petitioner in WP 33745/05 K. Selvarajan ... Petitioner in WP 33840/05 P. Lakshmanan .. Petitioner in WP 33841/05 R.S. Subramanian ... Petitioner in WP 33842/05 K. Sivaram ... Petitioner in WP 33843/05 Periasamy ... Petitioner in WP 33844/05 Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner in WP 33845/05 C. Dhachinamoorthy ... Petitioner in WP 33846/05 Manoharan ... Petitioner in WP 33870/05 P. Ravi .. Petitioner in WP 33871/05 Gopalakrishnan .. Petitioner in WP 33872/05 R. Ayrasu ... Petitioner in WP 33873/05 K. Thangavel ... Petitioner in WP 33874/05 R. Palanisamy ... Petitioner in WP 33875/05 P. Murugesan ... Petitioner in WP 33876/05 Tamil Nadu Congress Salem State Transport Corporation National Workers Welfare Union Regd. No. 958/SL.M. Rep by its General Secretary P. Velusamy ... Petitioner in WP 34575/05 P. Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner in WP 35006/05 R. Kandasamy ... Petitioner in WP 35007/05 K. Rathinasamy ... Petitioner in WP 35008/05 C. Sampathkumar ... Petitioner in WP 35009/05 S. Gopalsamy ... Petitioner in WP 35010/05 M. sivakumar ... Petitioner in WP 35011/05 A. Thangavelu ... Petitioner in WP 35012/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S. Mohankumar ... Petitioner in WP 35013/05 C. Balakrishnan ... Petitioner in WP 35014/05 N. Thangavel .. Petitioner in WP 35015/05 D. Balachandar .. Petitioner in WP 35016/05 V. Govindarajan .. Petitioner in WP 35039/05 J.Samykannu .. Petitioner in WP 35040/05 B. sudhakar .. Petitioner in WP 35041/05 V.Shanmugam ..Petitioner in WP.35042/05 K.Selvakumar ..Petitioner in WP.35043/05 S.Mohan ..Petitioner in WP.35044/05 S.Arjunan ..Petitioner in WP.35045/05 V.Sankar Ram ..Petitioner in Wp.37840/05 R.Muniraj ..Petitioner in WP.37841/05 C.Venkatachalam ..Petitioner in WP.37842/05 S.Muthukaruppan ..Petitioner in WP.37843/05 K.Sakthivel ..Petitioner in WP.37844/05 Respondents Cause Title in Wps. 1.Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai), Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2 2. The General manager(Administration) Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. .. RR 1&2 in WP.31148/2005 The General Manager TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Division, Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode .. Respondent in WP.31378/05 to 31383/05, 31430 to 31433/05, 31499 to 31504/05, 31534 to 31539/05 The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Respondent in WP.31450/05 The Managing Director TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Salem. .. Respondent in WP.31461/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Secretary to Government of TamilNadu, Transport and Highways Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Managing Director TamilNadu State Trasnport Corporatin Ltd, Madurai Division-III, Madurai. 3. The General Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Division III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. RR 1 to 3 in Wps.33592 to 33601/05 TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Erode Region, formerly TamilNadu State Transport Corporation(Coimbatore Division II) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 2. .. Respondent in WP.33616/05, 33617/05, 33674 to 33679/05, 33680 & 33681/05, 33685 to 33687/05, 33739 to 33745/05, 33840 to 33845/05, 33846/05. The General Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Division, Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode. Respondent in WP.33870 to 33876/05 The Managing Director TamilNadu State Transport Corporation(salem Division-I) ltd., Salem-636 007. Respondent in WP.34575/05 TamilNadu State Trasnport corporation Ltd., Coimbatore represented by its Managing Director, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Respondent in WP.35006 to 35016/05, 35039 to 35045/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TamilNadu State Trasnport Corporation Ltd., represented by its managing Director, Chennimalai Road, Erode. Respondent in WP.37840 to 37844/05. Writ Appeals under clause 15 of the letters patent against the order of the Honourable Mr.Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam, dated 13.5.2003 and made in the exercise of that Special Original Jurisdiction of this High court in WP.No.12279/03, 13269, 13272, 12326, 13270, 12317, 12278, 13274, 12847, 12280, 12848, 12318, 12867, 12897, 12316, 12327, 12276, 12866, 12275, 13276, 13271, 12849, 12319, 12530, 12328, 12324, 12896 and 12277 of 2003 respectively. Presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the respondent relating to the order in Ref Nos.1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1122/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1122/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE 1124/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1122/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1122/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1122/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1122/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE, 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE,and 1123/P4/Pa.Pil/CBE respectively Divn 2/2003, dated 3.4.2003 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to give the petitioner permanency an completion of 240 days of service from the dae of initial appointment in accordance with 12(3) settlement with the consequential benefits. WA.SR.No.40538/2005:- Writ Appeal sought to be preferred under clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order of the Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.Mishra, dated 25.2.2005 and made in the exercise of the special Original Jurisdiction of this court in WP.No.3352/98 presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records and quash letter No.Tho.Pa.1/53564/97 dated 30.9.97 of the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to register the experience certificate of the workers whose names are in the annexure spar for their name, to the 2nd Respondent corporation and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to appoint the workers whose names are in the annexure. 1. writ petitions filed under Ariticle 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reemploy the petitioners as diver as per section 25H of the I.D.Act before appointing any new person as a driver either by direct recriutment or otherwise, award Costs(WP.31148/05,WP.31378 to 31383/05,31430 to 31433/05,31499 to 31504/05 31534 to 31539/05. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. directing the respondent to implement the order in WP.3352 of 1998 dated 25.2.2005 by appointing the workers whose names are in the annexure as driver and conductors in the Respondent Corporation as a preferential bassis as per section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947(WP.31450/05) 3. directing the respondent to implement the order in WA.No.1017 and 1019 of 1997 dated 8.12.1997 by appointing the workers whose names are in the typed set as drivers and conductors in the Respondent Corporation as a preferential bassis as per section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (WP.31461/05) 4. directing the respondents to reemploy the petitioner as a driver as per Section 25H I.D. Act before appointing any new person as a driver either by new recruitment or otherwise costs(WPs.33592 to 33601/05) 5. directing the respondents to reemploy the petitioner as a conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 11.2.2000 of this Hon'ble Court in WP.1869/99 and the order of the respondent dated 17-4-2000 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise, award costs(WP.33616/05) 6. as per order dated 23-2-99 of this court in WP19900/98 at the order of the respondent dated 19.8.99 respondents(WP.33617/05) 7. directing the respondent to the petitioner reemploy as conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 15.3.99 of this Hon'ble Court in WP.3252/99 3253/99 and the order of the respondent dated 26.8.99 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.(WP.33674/05 to 33678/05) 8. directing the respondent to the petitioner reemploy as conductor in the existing vacancies as per sections 25-H of Industrial Disputes act and the assurance given by the respondent before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recuritment of otherwise, Award Costs (WP.33679/05) 9. as per order dated 18.12.98 of this Hon'ble court in WP.18164/98 and the order of the respondent dated 20.5.99 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise, award costs. (WP.33680/05 & 33681/05) 10. as per order dated 4.9.98 of this Hon'ble court in WP.12508/98 & WP.12509/98 & WP 12507/98 and the order of the respondent dated 10.2.99 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.(WP.33685 to 33687/05) 11. directing the respondent to the petitioner re-employ as conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 15.3.99 of this Hon'ble https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ court in WP.19185/98,17354/98,17351/98,17357/98, 17360/98, 17359/98, 17783/98 and the Order of the respondent dated 20.8.99 & 26.8.99 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.(WP.33739 to 33745/05) 12. directing the respondent to the petitioner re-employ as conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 21.12.01,17.6.99,21.12.01 and 7.7.2000 Hon'ble court in WP.25261/01,25262/01,10190/99,10192/99 25233/01 and 11340/2000 respectively and the order dated 8.12.97 in W.A 1294 to 1299/97 etc before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.(WPs.33840 to 33845/05) 13. directing the respondent to re-employ the petitioner as conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 15.3.99 of this Hon'ble Court in Wp.No.3253/98 and the order of the respondent dated 26.8.99 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.(in WP.33846/05) 14. directing the respondents to re-employ the petitioner as a driver as per Section 25H of the ID Act before appointing any new person as driver either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs in (WPs.33870 to 33876/05) 15. directing the respondent to appoint the members of the petitioner union annexed herein as Driver/conductor as per the orders issued in WA 1017 and 1019 of 1997 dated 8.12.97 and as per section 25 H of I.D.Act 1947 before making any fresh recruitment from the open Mariet. (WP.34575/05) 16. directing the respondents to re-employ the petitioner as a driver in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 6.3.2003 of this Hon'ble court in WP.16579/2000, 16538/2000, 16574/2000, 16568/2000, 16573/2000, 16535/2000 & 16566/2000, 16542/2000 and the order of the respondent dated 5.12.2003 before appointing any new person as driver either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.[(WP.35006,35009/2005) (WP.35010,35011/05) (wp.35012,35013, 35014,35015/05) AND (wp 35016/05) 17. directing the respondent to re-employ the petitioner as conductor in the existing vacancies as per section 25 H of ID Act before appointing any new person as Conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs. (WP.35007 & 35008/05) 18. directing the respondent to re-employ the petitioner as conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order of the respondent dated 17.5.2004 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.( WP.35039/05) 19. directing the respondent to re-employ the petitioner as conductor in the existing vacancies as per the order dated 7.11.2001 of this Hon'ble https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court in WP.21290/2001 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise award costs.( WP.35040/05). 20. as per the order dated 18.10.2001 of this Honourable Court in WP.19748/2001 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs (WP.35041/2005) 21. as per the order dated 18.10.2001 of this Honourable Court in WP.19876/2001 before appointing any new person as driver either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs (WP.35042/2005) 22.as per the order of the respondent dated 17.5.2004 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs (WP.35043/2005) 23. as per the order dated 19.11.2001 of this Honourable Court in WP.22226/2001 and the order of the respondent dated 8.4.2004 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs (WP.35044/2005) 24. as per the order dated 10.12.2001 of this Honourable Court in WP.23708/2001 before appointing any new person as conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs (WP.35045/2005) 25.as per the section 25.H of the I.D. Act before appointing any new person as driver and conductor either by direct recruitment or otherwise Award costs (WPs.37840/05 to 37844/05 respectively) Mr. D. Hariparanthaman:- For Appellant in all the Writ Appeals and for Petitioner in W.P.Nos.31378 to 31383, 31499 to 31504, 31534 to 31539, 31430 to 31433, 33616, 33617, 33674 to 33679, 33680, 33681, 33685 to 33687, 33739 to 33745,33840 to 33845,33846, 33870 to 33876, 35006 to 35016, 35039 to 35045,31148, 37840 to 37844/2005. Mr. R. Ganesan:- For petitioner in W.P.Nos. 33592 to 33601/2005. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for M/s.Sudha Ramalingam, D. Nagasaila:- For petitioner in W.P.Nos.31450,31461/2005 and for Respondent in W.A.M.P.No. 3810/2005. Mr. C. Selvaraju, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Mani: For Petitioner in W.P.No. 34575/2005. Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. L.G. Sahadevan:- For Respondents in all Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGEMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Sathasivam,J.,) Since the issue raised in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions relates to employment/re-employment of persons retrenched in the Transport Corporations, these matters are being disposed of by the following common judgement. Writ Appeals:- 2. The Writ Appeals are filed by the appellants against Order of K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J., in Writ Petition Nos. 11785 of 2003 etc., batch dated 13-05-2003. 3. According to the appellants, the respondent-Transport Corporation recruited about 75 Drivers through Employment Exchange during March, 2001. Those drivers underwent the selection process and got selected. On selection, they were sent for training at Chithode Training School. On completion of training, they were issued orders dated 18-04- 2001 appointing them on consolidated wages for two years describing them as ‘trainee drivers’ and posting them in various depots. They discharged the duties of regular drivers as they were sent on line duty and they were relievers to regular drivers. 4. It is their further case that as per Section 12 (3) settlement which came into force from 1-9-92, the drivers recruited through employment exchange should be made as ‘daily rated workmen’ and not on as consolidated pay. As per the settlement, on completion of 240 duties by these daily rated drivers, they should be made permanent and should be brought to scale of pay. The Transport Corporation paid Rs.2,500/- as consolidated pay per month while monthly salary would be Rs.4,160/- if it was paid based on daily rated wage of Rs.160/- per day. By putting them on consolidated pay, permanency would not be conferred. 5. The Transport Corporation issued orders during February/March, 2002 making all the 75 drivers as daily rated workmen. In the same order, it is specifically stated that on being made daily rated workmen, they were directed to pay Rs.4550/- towards the shares of Medical and Engineering colleges run by I.R.T. As directed, they paid the required amount. As per the settlement, the drivers should have been appointed on daily rated workmen from 18-4-2001 itself, instead of appointing them initially as trainee drivers on consolidated salary. However, they were brought on daily rated workmen during February/March, 2002. On completion of 240 duties, the drivers were issued orders dated 30-01-2003/29-3-2003 making them permanent and bringing them to scale of pay. However, the Transport Corporation cancelled the said orders dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30-01-2003/29-3-2003 and also the orders making them daily rated in February/March, 2002 by issuing orders dated 3-4-2003 to all the 75 drivers. Based on the said order dated 3-4-2003, on completion of 2 years service, the drivers were sought to be relieved. The said order dated 3- 4-2003 was challenged by the 75 drivers by individually filing writ petitions. The prayer in the writ petition was to quash the order dated 3- 4-2003 of the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division-II, Erode and for a direction to make them permanent on completion of 240 days from the date of initial appointment as per the 12 (3) settlement. Those, who were not relieved, had the benefit of interim order and continued in service and those, who were relieved did not have the benefit of interim order. It is the grievance of the appellants that the seniors who had completed their tenure of 2 years earlier, did not have the benefit of interim order. All the writ petitions were finally disposed of on 13-5-2003 by a common order. The learned Single Judge passed the following order: "14. However, in view of the stand taken by the Corporation as mentioned above and bearing in mind the right of the workers to seek compliance of the terms of settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I am inclined to pass the following order:- i) The services of the petitioners shall not be terminated, other than the 31 employees who have already been relieved. ii) They will be retained in service on the same terms and conditions and salary as they were entitled to before the order of confirmation were issued on 30-1-2003. iii) Their services will not be terminated merely on the basis that their appointments are temporary and that their period of training has been completed. They will continue to be employed in the same capacity and in the same terms as before 30-1-2003 till they are regularised in service as and when vacancies in the permanent cadre arise or the permanent cadre strength is increased. It is not disputed that their services are being utilised and are required as on date. iv) It is open to the Corporation to take action against any individual employee for any misconduct either in the context of the allegation of fraud or collusion as stated above or any misconduct which may arise in future and this order will not stand in the way of such action. 15. As regards the rights of the employees arising out of the alleged agreement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act or their claims under the Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanency Act, 1981, the petitioners are free to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approach the appropriate authority/Labour Court as the case may be, for any relief to which they are entitled to, inclusive of the 31 employees who have already been relieved. 16. The writ petitions are disposed of subject to the above observations..." 6. The grievance of Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants, is that the learned Judge having arrived at a categorical conclusion that the persons concerned were relieved without a minimum opportunity of show-cause notice, granted relief in favour of the persons who have not been relieved, and rejected the same relief in respect of the 31 candidates who had already been relieved on 18-4-2003 and 19-4-2003. It is his further grievance that the learned Judge, while granting limited relief by holding that the drivers would be retained in service on the same terms and conditions and salary as they were entitled to before 30-01-2003, ought to have granted the same in favour of all the 75 selected candidates. In other words, the restricted prayer of the appellants as seen during the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the limited relief given in the writ petitions has also to be given/extended to the appellants as well because they are similarly situated with others who were granted limited relief. The only reason for denying the limited relief is that the appellants did not have the benefits of interim order. Mr. D. Hariparanthaman also contended that the relief given at the time of final disposal cannot be based on the interim order since the writ petitions were finally disposed of. It is also pointed out that for granting interim order, whether the drivers were relieved or not can be a relevant one, but by granting final relief, that cannot be a relevant criteria. On the other hand, Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation, would contend that these appellants were trainees and trainees have