IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN W.P.Nos.4204, 9520, 13888 & 21547 of 2003 01. C.Mahalingam 02. M.S.Eswaran 03. K.Manoharan 04. K.Rajendran 05. J.Leelavathi 06. A.Chinnaiyan 07. N.Srinivasan 08. N.Sekar 09. G.Ganesan 10. P.Krishnasamy 11. D.Periasamy 12. M.Jothi 13. P.Jayaprakash 14. R.Ravichandramohan 15. C.Dhanavel 16. R.Ravichandran 17. K.Selvaraju 18. P.Kamaraju 19. J.Mahalakshmi 20. B.Nallamuthu ...Petitioners in 21. K.Rajavelu W.P.No.4204/ 03 01. P.Dhanalakshmi 02. P.Kaliammal 03. P.Venkataraman 04. A.Krishnan 05. V.Rukmani 06. G.Sumathi 07. S.Ravi 08. N.Nirmala 09. K.Gopalakrishnan ...Petitioners in 10. R.Gopal W.P.No.9520/03 01. D.Jayasankaran 02. S.Chandrasekaran 03. K.Sivasamy 04. Ranjini Sulochana 05. M.C.Krishnan 06. P.Arumugam 07. R.Saraswathi 08. R.Ramakrishnan 09. M.Subbaiah 10. A.Krishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. N.Kumar 12. R.Gunasekaran 13. R.Natarajan ...Petitioners in 14. N.Mohan W.P.No.13888/03 01. V.Muthusami 02. N.Sekar 03. G.Ganesan 04. N.Srinivasan 05. P.Krishnasamy 06. J.Alexander Jalastin 07. P.Kamaraju 08. A.Chinnaiyan 09. E.A.Subramani ...Petitioners in 10. N.Nirmala W.P.No.21547/03 -Vs- The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary to Government Sole respondent in Agriculture Department W.P.Nos.4204 & Secretariat, Chennai-9 ... 9520 of 2003 State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government 1st respondent in Fort St.George W.P.Nos.13888 & Chennai 600 009 ... 21547 of 2003 Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited rep.by its Managing Director Agro House 2nd respondent in Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate W.P.Nos.13888 & Guindy, Chennai 600 032 ... 21547 of 2003 W.P.Nos.4204 & 9520 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his letter Ms.No.421 dated 26.12.02 and quash the same and direct the respondent to provide alternative employment with continuity of service in any post in the State of Tamil Nadu in any of the existing or immediate future vacancies before filling of the same by way of direct recruitment to the petitioners. W.P.Nos.13888 & 21547 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his letter Ms.No.421 dated 26.12.02 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to provide alternative employment with continuity of service and pay protection in any post in any of the existing or immediate future vacancies. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners :: Mr.R.Singaravelan in W.P.Nos.4204 & 9520 of 2003 Mr.R.Karthikeyan in W.P.Nos.13888 & 21547 of 2003 For Respondents :: Ms.Sneha Government Advocate for State No appearance for Corporation ORDER The batch of writ petitions questions the letter dated 26.12.2002 issued by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government. By that order, the request of the petitioners to consider them on par with TANCOF employees who have been attached to Agriculture Department was rejected. These petitioners are all the employees of Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (for short, "the Corporation") attached to Agriculture Department. By G.O.Ms.No.339 Agriculture (AE.II) Department dated 28.11.2001, the Government, having regard to the accumulated loss sustained by the Corporation, directed the closure of the Corporation. On the date when the closure was ordered, there were 329 employees. The employees including the petitioners numbering 237 were issued with the notices under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the permission of the State Government was sought to retrench these employees. The said move was opposed. But, nevertheless, the Government passed orders in G.O.(D) No.163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated 26.2.2002 retrenching the employees. At the time when such order was passed, the Agriculture Department was also requested to give sympathetic consideration for the rehabilitation of the workmen and to extend all concession and benefits permissible. It appears that by the impugned order, the said request was rejected giving rise to the present writ petitions. 2. I have heard Mr.R.Singaravelan & Mr.R.Karthikeyan, respective learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Sneha, learned Government Advocate for the State. 3. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. There is no dispute that the Corporation was ordered to be closed on account of the accumulated loss and the difficulties experienced in the continuance of the Corporation. The Government therefore issued the Government Order for closure and the employees were retrenched. After retrenchment, as many as 36 employees, who are similarly placed like the petitioners, have been absorbed in Agricultural Department by G.O.Ms.No.241 Agriculture (AE) Department dated 8.8.2002. A copy of the said Government Order is annexed to the typed-set of papers in W.P.No.13888 of 2003. By that order, the employees, who were retrenched, have been taken back with a further direction that whatever the ex-gratia amount paid to them should be recovered in monthly instalments from their salary. In terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, in case of absorption after retrenchment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as against the available post, such absorption should be on the basis of seniority. These 36 employees were retrenched subsequent to the petitioners and the same is not in dispute and equally the fact that they have been taken back into service is also not in dispute. That apart, the G.O.(D).No.163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated 26.2.2002 had directed that the grievance of the retrenched employees should be considered sympathetically. The rehabilitation as intended by the Government does not reflect in the impugned order, which is only a letter addressed by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government. The said letter, in my opinion, is contrary to the Government Order dated 26.2.2002. The impugned order also does not say as to why the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered on par with the TANCOF employees. 4. The petitioners have also raised the question of discrimination meted out to them compared to the treatment given to the TANCOF employees in absorbing them into service. The respondents have a defence to say that they were deputed to the said federation and engaged on contract basis for a period of 3 months + 3 months and later on they were absorbed. Such deputation was made on the basis of the option given by them, whereas the petitioners have not opted and therefore they cannot be equated to them. In this regard, the submission of the learned Government Advocate must be accepted. 5. Be that as it may, for the reasons that as many as 36 employees, who were similarly situated, have been absorbed by G.O.Ms.No.241 Agriculture (AE) Department dated 8.8.2002, particularly they being retrenched subsequently when compared to the petitioners, and having regard to the G.O.(D) No.163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated 26.2.2002 directing rehabilitation of the retrenched employees of the Corporation, I do not find any justification in the impugned letter rejecting the request of the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned Letter Ms.No.421 dated 26.12.2002 is set aside. The respondent-Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically for absorption in any other department to which they are eligible. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ss To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 3 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., 'Agro House' Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 +2 CC to Mr.R.Singaravelan Advocate Sr.42932,42933 +4 CC to Mr.R.Karthikeyan Advocate, Sr.43037,43038 W.P.Nos.4204 of 2003 etc. CK (CO) BMD 09/09/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/