Madras High Court
Madurai Mavatta Panjalai Aadai Matrum vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 January, 2017
W.P.No.13896 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: Pronounced on:
15.03.2024 10.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.13896 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.14771 & 14772 of 2021
Madurai Mavatta Panjalai Aadai Matrum
Podhu Tozhilalar Sangam (Regn.No.1561/MDU),
Represented by its General Secretary Muthumani Muthuraja,
8/35A, Nedunchezhian Street,
New Vilangudi, Madurai – 625 018. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Labour and Industries,
(Department of Industries, Labour and Cooperation),
Fort St. George, Chennai.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13896 of 2021
4.The Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Chennai – 600 006.
5.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Executive Engineer & Administration Officer,
Madurai Housing Unit, Madurai.
6.The Official Liquidator,
Madras High Court,
(Liquidator of Sree Visalakshi Mills),
Corporate Bhavan, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
7.N.Lakshmanan .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 1st
respondent relating to proceedings dated 31.01.2017 bearing ref Letter
No.26549/SC2(1)/2016-3 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without
jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to register the
quarters in the Visalakshi Mill Labour Colony to the occupants of the
respective quarters who are members of the petitioner Sangam and details of
whom are given in the typed set of papers if necessary by resuming the
property in terms of the condition mentioned in Agreement dated 26.12.1956
and 19.03.1957 which was published in the Government Gazette on
10.04.1957.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
for Row and Reddy
For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar
Government Advocate
For R5 : Mrs.B.Ambili
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13896 of 2021
Official Liquidator
For R7 : Mr.R.Venkatavaradan
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to call for the records from the 1st respondent relating to proceedings dated 31.01.2017 bearing ref Letter No.26549/SC2(1)/2016-3 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to register the quarters in the Visalakshi Mill Labour Colony to the occupants of the respective quarters who are members of the petitioner Sangam and details of whom are given in the typed set of papers if necessary by resuming the property in terms of the condition mentioned in Agreement dated 26.12.1956 and 19.03.1957 which was published in the Government Gazette on 10.04.1957.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner/Union represented by one P.Muthuraja.
3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 31.01.2017 bearing ref Letter No.26549/SC2(1)/2016-3. Relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 31.01.2017 reads as under:-
“5. As per the G.O. in the reference first cited, sale deeds shall be issued to the occupier of the houses / tenements only for those houses /tenements which were constructed by the Government through Tamil Nadu Housing Board under Public Sector through assistance from the Central Government and which no. only 4117 and do not include the staff quarters of Shri Visalakshi Mills Limited.
6. In the circumstances stated above, as the land for construction of 72 staff quarters for Shri Visalakshi Mills Limited, Madurai and the vacant land was acquired by the Government on behalf of the Mill and the Mill has paid the entire cost of land acquisition to the Government and the houses were also constructed under Private Sector component of the Government of India Scheme of Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker Sections wherein the Mill obtained only the subsidy from Government of India and the rest of the amount towards construction of Staff Quarters was mobilized through loan and repaid by the Mill your request cannot be considered as the Mill Management has full right over the land and the construction”
4. Mr.R.Venkatavaradan, learned counsel for the seventh respondent has made elaborate submissions.
5. The learned counsel for the seventh respondent has filed Written 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 Submission. He submits that the writ petition is misconceived and is hopelessly barred and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches.
6. It is further submitted that the impugned Order was passed as early as 31.01.2017 pursuant to Order passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).No.9613 of 2009. It is submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2021. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is further submitted that once the Company has ceased to operate, the employees also cease to be the workers of the Company and therefore they cannot squat over the properties of the Company in respect of which no rents were also paid. Only after attempts were made by the Office of the Official Liquidator to vacate the occupants, W.P.(MD).No.9613 of 2009 was filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
8. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Mormugao Port 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 Trust and others, (2006) 3 AIR Bom R 503 (DB).
9. Specifically a reference was made to Paragraphs 12 and 15 from the said decision, which is reproduced below:-
“12. In (Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore), reported in A.I.R.1962 Mysore 25, 1961 (11) L.L.J.583, the Government Employees' Association had sought to challenge promotion granted to certain Government Employees while seeking direction to consider the claim of its members to those promotional posts. While dealing with the issue whether such a petition is maintainable or not, it was held by the Division Bench of Mysore High Court that it was not a matter wherein Court was dealing with any industrial dispute property raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees Association could be said to be a party and that:
“..... the grievances which are the subject- matter of the proposed writ petition are clearly those of certain individual and not of the association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the association might be vitally interested.”
13. .....
14. .....
15. Again, in (Hatti Goldmines Officers' Association Vs. Hatti Gold Mines Company Ltd.), reported in 2001 Lab.I.C.3787, the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court while dealing with the similar issue held that a 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 petitioner Trade Union cannot maintain petition on behalf of its members on the premise that their fundamental rights or other legal rights have been infringed by an action on the part of their employer-company, though such grievance can be sought to be redressed by means of negotiations or as an industrial dispute as provided under relevant statutory provisions but not by way of representative writ petition by the trade union. It was ruled that it is always open to the affected individual employees to maintain a writ petition by themselves if they complain of violation of any of their fundamental or any other legal rights which can be examined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court.”
10. The dispute in this Writ Petition pertains to the land that was allotted to Sree Visalakshi Mills Limited, Vilangudi, Madurai, which has been ordered to wound up by this Court in C.P.No.78 of 2008 on 24.06.2008.
11. By this impugned order, the 1st respondent has disposed of the representation of P.Muthuraja, the General Secretary of Madurai Puranagar Mavatta Panchalai Thozhilalargal Sangam pursuant to a direction of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.9613 of 2009.
12. Though the impugned order was passed on 31.01.2017, the present Writ Petition was filed only 01.07.2021 by the petitioner herein namely Madurai Mavatta Panjalai Aadai Matrum Podhu Tozhilalar Sangam (Regn.No.1561/MDU), deponent as one Muthumani Muthuraja, who is the 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 son of P.Muthuraja, who had filed W.P.(MD).No.9613 of 2008 on behalf of the Madurai Puranagar Mavatta Panchalai Thozhilalargal Sangam on a specific query as to whether P.Muthuraja was an employee of the Company under liquidation namely Sree Visalakshi Mills Limited. It was informed that he was formerly an employee of the Company.
13. Today another case was listed as Item No.36 in C.P.No.132 of 2008 at 12.30 PM. In the said proceedings also the said P.Muthuraja had filed C.A.No.1111 of 2014 in C.P.No.132 of 2008 claiming to be the General Secretary of M/s.Sheelarani Textiles Limited, the Company under liquidation in C.P.No.132 of 2008.
14. Prima facie, the present Writ Petition filed by the deponent, a youngster aged about 26 years in respect of a Company which was ordered to be wound up in the year 2008 in the present proceedings in the capacity of a General Secretary of the petitioner Sangam appears to be not bona fide.
15. It appears that the said P.Muthuraja, the General Secretary of Madurai Puranagar Mavatta Panchalai Thozhilalargal Sangam died on 27.12.2020. It is not clear how the post of a Secretary of a trade union can have hereditary succession unless it is a paper trade union. That apart, it is 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 also not clear how P.Muthuraja's son namely Muthumani Muthuraja became the Secretary of the Sangam.
16. Be that as it may, the challenge to the impugned order in the year 2021 is long after the disposal of the representation on 31.01.2017. There is a latches. That apart, there is no merits in the challenge to the impugned order. The admitted facts of the case is that the land in question measuring about 20 acres (19.79 acres) in Madurai Town, Vilangudi Village, Visalakshi Nagar in various Survey Numbers was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act of 1894) on behalf of the said Company in C.P.No.78 of 2008.
17. The land was acquired for public purpose albeit for construction of dwelling units for the workers as is evident from the preamble to G.O.Ms.No.1085, Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 25.03.1957.
18. The G.O.Ms.No.1085, Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 25.03.1957 itself makes it clear that the Company shall pay the cost of the 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 land to the Government before the said land is transferred by the Government, the cost of the land as settled by the Collector.
19. The allotment of the land is conditional in terms of para.no.3 of the aforesaid Government Order, which reads as under:-
“3.The terms up to which the said land shall be held by the company are-
(a) that the land shall be used for the provision of quarters of staff and workmen of Sree Visalakshi Mills Limited, Vilangudi, Madurai;
(b) that the company shall pay to the Government of Madras annually the appropriate assessment or ground rent as the case may be, on the land which shall be liable to revision at any general revision of the land revenue settlement;
(c) that the lands acquired should be used only for the building of a labour colony and that dwellings when built will be leased to the workers of the company at reasonable rates of rent;
(d) that in the event of the company being wound up or in the event of failure on the part of the company to carry out the terms of the agreement that is to say, conditions (a) to (c) above, the lands shall be liable to be resumed and taken back by the Government on repayment to the company of the amount of the award as finally settled less the 15 per cent awarded for compulsory requisition or the estimated market value of the land at the time of resumption whichever is les and if there are any buildings on on the land the said 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 Government may at their option either purchase the buildings on payment of their estimated value at the time or direct the company to remove the buildings at its own cost, within such time as may be allowed by the Government; and
(e) that in the event of the voluntary relinquishment of the land by the company as not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Government may resume the land if it is required for a public purpose or if they consider that it should be returned to the original owner, if the Government decide not to exercise this power and inform the company accordingly, the latter may dispose of the land in any manner it likes. In the event of the resumption of the land under this condition, the compensation payable to the company shall be the value of the land at the time of acquisition less the 15 per cent awarded for compulsory acquisition, or its estimated market value at the time of resumption, whichever is less, together with the value of the buildings and other improvements at the time of resumption.
If there are buildings on the land which the Government do not require, the company shall remove them at its cost.”
20. On the land acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the company had also put up construction under Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme. The records also indicate that the Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Madras in his 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 communication to the first respondent dated 12.05.1986 bearing No.F.1.42424/86 has informed that under the Public Sector and Private Sector, colonies were constructed for allotments to the Industrial workers covered under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, at subsidised rates of interest.
21. The aforesaid communication indicate that houses were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board after obtaining project sanction from the Government in Housing Urban Development and about 72 houses were constructed. Relevant portion of the communication reads as under:-
12/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021
22. By G.O.(Ms).No.971, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 15.07.1987, the Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department stated as follows:- 15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021
23. By yet another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.691, Housing and Urban Development (SC2(2)) Department dated 10.08.1993, it was clarified in respect of the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme for industrial workers and Economically Weaker Sections of the community are implemented under public sector and private sector. The houses built for industrial workers under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme both in the public as well as in the private sector were to be retained for allotment to eligible workers on rental basis only.
24. Ultimately it was clarified as under:-
17/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021
25. The Madurai Mavatta Madurai Vadakku Vattam Register maintained at the SRO also indicate that the land acquired for housing purpose has been treated as housing colony and the land of the company for 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 other purpose has been treated as land of the company in the name of Sree Visalakshi Mills Limited, C.Narayanan Chettiar.
26. In my view, the workers have no right over the land that was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and transferred to the company in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1085, Industries, Labour and Co-opeartion, dated 25.03.1957. The counter of the first respondent also confirms that the Government has paid the necessary amount towards the land as settled by the Collector under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
27. Para No.1 after the preamble to the Notification is extracted as under:-
“1.The Company shall pay to the Government before the said land is transferred to the Company, the cost of the land as settled by the Collector, or if reference is made to the Court, by the final Court of appeal and all costs of acquisition inclusive of all payments and allowance in respect thereof payable under the said At and all Court costs and pleader's fees, etc., incurred by the Government in defending the reference, if any, made to the Court as aforesaid and on appeal or appeals filed in connection therewith and all costs, pleader's fees, etc., payable or paid by the Government to the claimant in the said matters.
The Government shall not be bound to give possession of the land until all the said moneys have been paid to them by the Company and may withdraw from the acquisition of the land and in case of 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 withdrawal, the Company shall be liable to indemnify the Government against all expenses incurred and damage sustained as the result of any thing done by them in the matter of acquisition of the land till the date of withdrawal.”
28. Thus, the rights of the workers to occupy the houses which were given to them while so the Company was a going concerned cannot be countenanced with at this stage. The workers also cannot claim over the ownership of the property merely because the Company was ordered to be wound up. The winding up of the Company entitled the Government to resume the land on payment of the award amount settled less 15% awarded for compulsory acquisition from the market value of the land at the time of resumption, which ever is less as is evident from clause 3(d) of G.O.Ms.No.1085, Industries, Labour and Co-opeartion, dated 25.03.1957, context of which has been extracted in the beginning of the discussion. Government is directed to resume the land, if the amounts have not been paid earlier or in the alternative recover the amounts from the Official Liquidator Office.
29. Therefore, there is absolutely no merits in this Writ Petition. In 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 any event, the Writ Petition is also not bona fide as it has been filed long after the impugned order was passed by the first respondent.
30. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
10.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
krk/arb
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Labour and Industries, (Department of Industries, Labour and Cooperation), Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The Commissioner of Labour, DMS Campus, Chennai – 600 006.
22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021
5.The Executive Engineer & Administration Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Housing Unit, Madurai.
6.The Official Liquidator, Madras High Court, (Liquidator of Sree Visalakshi Mills), Corporate Bhavan, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
krk/arb 23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13896 of 2021 W.P.No.13896 of 2021 10.04.2024 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis