IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.06.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.5443 of 2001 1.B.Chandrasekaran 2.V.Thirunavukkarasu 3.J.Sahayaraj 4.M.Dhanasekaran 5.C.Mahendran 6.R.Sadagopan 7.A.Sankaran 8.S.Chelladurai 9.M.V.Nachimuthu 10.A.Govindaraj 11.N.Rethinam 12.G.Bhaskaran 13.P.Rengasamy 14.V.Mickelsamy 15.V.Tholappan 16.A.Anbalagan 17.V.Moorthy 18.R.Kalimuthu 19.B.Nagarajan 20.A.Palanivel 21.P.Thirugnanaselvam 22.S.Soundararajan ..Petitioners Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, No.42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010. ..Respondent This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent corporation in connection with the decision taken under Demand No.8 in the Minutes of discussions held on 21.2.2001 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent corporation management to fill up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vacancies arising in any region in Class III or Class IV only from and among the common statewise seniority list in the cadre of Helpers. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Prakash, SC for Ms.G.Ramapriya For Respondent : Mr.V.Selvavinayagam ORDER 22 petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the recorded minutes of discussions relating to demand No.8 held on 21.2.2001 and after quashing the same, to direct the respondent Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation to fill up vacancies arising in any region in respect of Class III and Class IV posts only on the basis of common Statewise seniority list from the cadre of Helpers. 2.The writ petition was admitted on 21.3.2001. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay of demand No.8 in the minutes of discussion held on 21.2.2001. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 20.8.2003. On notice, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 15.7.2009. 3.It is the case of the petitioners that several trade unions functioning in the respondent corporation have entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation, Chennai. With the said settlement, several demands of workmen were considered including the demand of the employees in the Direct Procurement Centre (DPC). Paragraph 3 of the settlement reads as follows: "3.As regards the demand of the workmen for giving preference to the qualified seasonal employees in the D.P.C. while filling the regular vacancies, it is agreed that whenever the T.N.C.S.C. has to go to the employment exchange for direct recruitment of any class III or class IV services after exhausting the eligible candidates among the existing regular employees in the feeder categories, the qualified seasonal employees who were initially recruited through employment exchange will be given preference relaxing only the age qualification but not relaxing any other qualification, subject to the policy of reservation. In the event of absorbing the seasonal employees in the vacancies that arise in any region throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, the qualified hands will be selected by drawing the centralised seniority list in the Head Office level according to total of broken periods of service and they might be allotted to the needy regions wherever vacancies https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arise, on their requisition. Where age relaxation becomes necessary the Management will get appropriate concurrence of Government." 4.Subsequently, the respondent Corporation had also issued a circular dated 11.8.1993 quoting the Government Order prescribing guidelines for recruitment to Class III and Class IV employees in the TNCSC from among the employees under DPCs. Thereafter, several employees who were engaged on seasonal basis were also recruited. Once again, another settlement under Section 18(1) between the workmen and the Corporation was also signed. With reference to the charter of demand and with reference to preference in employment, the following terms were arrived at, which are as follows: "PREFERENCE IN EMPLOYMENT: As regards the demand of the workmen for giving preference to the qualified seasonal employee in the D.P.Cs while filling the regular vacancies, it is agreed that the Clause 3 in the settlement Dated 19.9.91 (regarding wage revision to D.P.C. employees) will continue for another three years i.e. whenever the TNCSC has to go to the Employment Exchange for direct recruitment of any class III or class IV services, after exhausting the eligible candidates among the existing regular employees in the feeder categories, the qualified seasonal employees who are initially recruited through employment exchange will be given preference relaxing any other qualification, subject to the policy of reservation. In the event of absorbing the seasonal employees in the vacancies that arise in any region throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, the qualified hands will be selected by drawing the centralized seniority list in the Head Office level according to total of broken periods of service and they might be allotted to the needy regions wherever vacancies arise, on their requisition Where age relaxation becomes necessary, the management will get appropriate concurrence of the Government. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN PROCUREMENT REGIONS: In respect of regular vacancies in class III and class VI categories which arise in procurement Region after exhausting the eligible candidates among the existing regular employees in the Feeder categories, the qualified D.P.C. employees of the respective procurement Regions, who were initially respective procurement regions, who were initially recruited through Employment Exchange will be given preference https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relaxing only the age-qualification; subject to the policy of Reservation. The qualified hands of the D.P.C. employees will be selected from the seniority list prepared by the concerned procurement Regions only." 5.Thereafter, a meeting was called on 21.2.2001 by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation for conducting negotiations. Demand No.8 was with reference to filling up the vacancies in Class III and Class IV within the time limit of 15.3.2001 in terms of settlement. In respect of the said demand, the Chairman and Managing Director informed the decision of the corporation, which is as follows: "DEMAND NO.8: All the vacancies of Class III and IV existing in the Procurement Regions should be filled up, before 15.3.2001 as per the 12(3) settlement. DECISION: All the existing vacancies of Class III and IV of each of the Procurement Region, will be filled up from among the DPC workers in the respective region with the norms of 12(3) Settlement subject to eligibility." 6.It is the claim of the union that the earlier settlement signed under Section 12(3), dated 19.9.1991 provides for centralised seniority list and therefore, by restricting it to region-wise seniority, workers will be put to suffering. But this stand ignores to the subsequent settlement between the parties dated 31.1.1997, wherein employment opportunities in procurement regions were confined only to the procurement regions only. That settlement is not under challenge before this court. Therefore, when the respondent CMD informed the Union the decision of the Corporation, they have not violated any terms of settlement. 7.In the counter affidavit, in paragraph 11 it was stated as follows: "11.I state that during a discussion held with the unions on 21.2.2001, on the demand of filling up the vacancies of Class III and IV in Procurement Regions as per 12(3) settlement, it was decided by the respondent that all the existing vacancies of Class III and IV of each of the Procurement Region will be filled up from among the DPC workers in the respective Regions with the norms of Section 12(3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ settlement subject to eligibility. The above said decision has been taken pursuant to the Clause 6 of settlement dt.30.1.97 and as such, the Petitioners have no grievance or apprehension over the decision." 8.Hence, the petitioners cannot challenge the said minutes of discussion in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners did not disclose their union's affiliation. In any event, if any of the workman was aggrieved, he can raise a dispute through his trade union and get an issue adjudicated. There is no violation of any terms of settlement as the respondent's decision in the impugned minutes is fully commensurate with the settlement during January, 1997. 9.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /True copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vvk To The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. No.42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010. + 1 c.c. to M/s. G. Ramapriya, Advocate. S.R.No.40724. + 1 c.c. to Mr. V. Selvanaayagam, Advocate. S.R.No.40994. W.P.NO.5443 OF 2001 RSM (CO) GSK 15.06.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/