1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10-02-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Appeal(MD) No.144 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Writ Appeal(MD) No.145 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Writ Appeal(MD) No.146 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam. .. Appellant in all writ appeals/Respondent -vs- D. Jayaprakash .. Respondent in W.A(MD).144/2011 P. Shanmugasundaram .. Respondent in W.A(MD).145/2011 R. Kalyanasundaram .. Respondent in W.A(MD).146/2011 These writ appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 4.4.2007 made in W.P.(MD)No.2302 of 2007, 2305 of 2007 and 2304 of 2007 respectively. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2302 of 2007, 2305 of 2007 and 2304 of 2007: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,directing the respondent to re-employ the petitioners as Driver in the existing vacancy as per Section 25-H of the I.D.Act and as per G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport(C.1)Department, dated 13.07.2006 and as per Judgment dated 14.12.2006 of this Court upholding the validity of the G.O.in W.P.No.26195/2006 and etc., before appointing any near person as Driver either by direct recruitment or otherwise. For Appellant in all writ appeals :: Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondent in all writ appeals:: Mr.S.Arunachalam COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.) These writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 4.4.2007 passed in W.P.Nos.2302, 2305 and 2304 of 2007 respectively, wherein the respondents in these writ appeals prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein to re-employ them as Drivers in the existing vacancy as per Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as per G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department dated 13.7.2006 and as per Judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2006 in W.P.No.26195 of 2006. 2. The learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that the respondents herein were employed as Drivers; and in the light of the provisions contained in Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.7.2006; and following the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court made in W.A.No.1294 to 1299 of 1997 etc., batch dated 8.12.1997, allowed the writ petitions, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 against which the Transport Corporation has preferred these writ appeals contending that the respondents herein have not completed 240 days of service and therefore they are not eligible to get the benefit of the Division Bench decision reported in 2006 (1) LLN 257 (M.Sekaran v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division-II, Erode) and re-employment. It is also contended that as they have not completed 240 days, they are not eligible to get the benefit under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 13.7.2006. 3. The issue effect of completion of 240 days in a calendar year as well as non-completion of 240 days, was already considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (1) LLN 257 (M.Sekaran v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division-II, Erode) and in paragraph 34 Clause (iii) (a) and (b), the Division Bench held thus, "34(iii)(a) In other writ petitions direction is issued to the respondents-Transport Corporations to provide re-employment to the writ petitioners who completed 240 days in the respective Corporations and satisfied other conditions, if any, in accordance with Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act in preference to new entrants. (b) Those (writ petitioners) who worked less than 240 days shall also be given re-employment and their services will be regularised, only after completion of 240 days and subject to fulfilling other conditions, if any." The said order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6582 of 2010 etc. batch and by order dated 13.8.2010 the Supreme Court upheld the above direction issued by the Division Bench in paragraph 34(iii) (a) and (b). 4. In the light of the above cited Division Bench decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.4.2007 is just and proper and no interference is called for. The writ appeals are disposed of in terms of the order of the Division Bench, extracted above as confirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 13.8.2010 No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Managing Director, The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,Kumbakonam. +1cc to Mr.R.Singaravelu, Advocate SR.No.5468 +1cc to Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate SR.No.5149 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.8575 Common Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.144 to 146 of 2011 10-02-2011 vr PA/17.03.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/