Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs V.Murugaiyan on 22 September, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22-09-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP Nos.26632 to 26654 of 2016
And
WMP Nos.22839 to 22861 of 2016
WP NO.26632 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk,
Chennai-5. .. Petitioner
vs.
1.V.Murugaiyan
2.The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
second respondent made in order dated 14.10.2015 in CP No.148 of 2008
and quash the same.
1/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.S.Ravindran,
Senior Counsel for
Ms.S.Mekhala.
For Respondent-1 in WPs
26632 to 26639, 26641 to
26645, 26647 and
26650 to 26654 of 2016 and
for R-3 and R-4 in WP
26640 of 2016, for
R-3 to R-5 in WPs 26646 and
26648 of 2016 and for
R-3 to R-6 in WP 26649 of 2016: Ms.G.P.Arivuchudar for
M/s.Law Square
For Respondent-1 in WPs
26640, 26646, 26648 and
26649 of 2016 : Died
For Respondent-2 in all WPs : Labour Court
COMMON ORDER
The orders dated 14.10.2015 passed by the second respondent-
Labour Court in CP Nos.148 to 170 of 2008, are under challenge in these writ petitions.
2/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
2. The writ petitioner is Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. The first respondent was working in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply Board. The employee was initially appointed by the Local Body/ Panchayat Union and on account of inclusion of the said Panchayat Union within the urban areas, the employees appointed by the Local Bodies on temporary daily wage basis were absorbed by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. They became the employees of the writ petitioner-
Board and they continue to serve as daily wage employees. Subsequently, pursuant to the Government Orders, the employees were granted consolidated pay salary and the said salary was periodically enhanced.
Finally, the time scale of pay was granted to these employees considering their long services and based on the Government Orders. In this regard, the benefits were also granted to the employees who were transferred from Local Bodies to the writ petitioner-Board.
3. These daily wage employees, who were absorbed in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and subsequently, brought under consolidated pay salary and the time scale of pay filed petitions before 3/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The petition was filed under Section 33-C(2) mainly on the ground that the first respondent-employee has completed 480 days of continuous service on 18.07.1976 within the period of 24 calender months as per Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and thus their services should be deemed to have been made permanent from the date of his appointment as per mandatory provisions of the above Act, 1981.
5. The basis for the claim was relying on Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Accordingly, the first respondent sought for the relief to grant regularisation and permanent absorption in the Board's services from the date on which he completed 480 days of service as temporary employee.
4/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
6. The Labour Court conducted an enquiry and accepted the claim of the first respondent-employee and passed an order granting the relief of retrospective regularisation from the date on which the first respondent completed 480 days of service with all consequential monetary benefits.
7. The said order of the Labour Court is under challenge in these writ petitions.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Board contended that the order per se is untenable, as there was no adjudication of disputed issues between the parties by way of an industrial dispute. In the absence of any such adjudication of disputed issues, no petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is entertained and thus the Labour Court erroneously assumed the jurisdiction and entertain the petition and granted the relief and thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
5/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Board is of an opinion that the conferment of permanent status is inapplicable to the employees of the Board. General Acts are not applicable, since the Special Rules governing the service conditions are very much in force as far as the petitioner-Board is concerned.
10. When the Board adopted the Government Service Rules for its employees and the Board being the State, within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the said service conditions and rules alone are applicable to the employees working in the Board and the general Act is not applicable. The general statutes and principles cannot be applied. Therefore, the benefit granted to the employees under Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, itself is in violations of settled principles of law.
11. That apart, these employees were absorbed by the petitioner-Board from the local bodies, pursuant to the expansion of the territorial jurisdiction. They were allowed to continue as daily wage employees and consolidated pay employees and thereafter the time scale was 6/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch granted pursuant to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.111, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 29.09.2006.
12. It is not in dispute that the benefit of regularisation and permanent absorption was granted to these employees at later point of time and they became the permanent employees of the petitioner-Board.
However, the retrospective regularisation granted by the Labour Court in a claim petitions under Section 33-C(2) is in violation of law, as the petitions are unsustainable.
13. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-
Board relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Management of Bimetal Bearings Limited, Rep. By its Whole Time Director vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others [MANU/TN/6959/2019], wherein this Court in paragraphs 11 to 14 and 24 observed as under:-
“11. With reference to the award of the Labour Court, the learned Senior Counsel urgesthis Court by stating that the workmen had 7/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch not examined any witness before the Labour Court so as to disprove the contentions of the writ petitioner/Management. In the absence of any disprovement before the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought not to have relied upon the version of the workmen for the purpose allowing the claim petition. At the outset, it is contended that the Government order declaring holiday would not be applicable to the factory and the writ petitioner Management is governed under the provisions of the Factories Act and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
12. The learned Senior Counsel cited the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 13.04.2007 passed in W.P. Nos. 46533 & 46534 of 2006 in the case of Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Employees Union and Ors. Vs. The Secretary to Government, Rural and Panchayat Raj Department and Ors. The Court observes as follows:
"10. Before going into the maintainability of the writ petition, it must first be ascertained whether 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch there is a right on the part of any employee to avail leave on the date of election in the absence of any statutory guarantee. As already referred to, the leave and holidays for employees working in a private industry is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 and so far as the weekly off and the Earned leave are concerned, the same is governed by the Factories Act and the Sick Leave is governed by the Employees' State Insurance Act. Admittedly, the provisions of the N.I. Act have no application to a private industry such as the third respondent. Even the Government Circular, which was further communicated by the second respondent Commissioner has only reference to the R.P. Act, and, 9/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch therefore, that has no relevance to local body elections. The constitutional provisions creating the State Election Commission and the relevant legislature and local bodies also do no contain any provision with reference to the right to have a holiday on the day of local body polls and the only question remains is that in the absence of law, whether the workmen are entitled to avail the leave on their own accord and thereafter, question the action of the Management treating the said leave taken by some workmen as leave on loss of pay, then approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against any such deduction, is not permissible."
13. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Ors. [reported in MANU/SC/0687/2000 : 2001 (1) L.L.N. 58], the 10/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch Supreme Court considered the scope of claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that "the difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered, just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within the jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act while the latter does not".
14. Citing these two judgments, the learned Senior counsel is of an opinion that the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act entertained by the Labour Court is not maintainable as the workmen had not established any pre-existing right as well as the Government Order issued declaring holiday would not be applicable to the writ petitioner/Management directly unless the holiday was declared under the Factories Act. In the present case, undoubtedly, the writ petitioner/Management themselves have given a concession in respect of 11/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch the workmen for general shift and first shift. However, the benefit was not extended to the second and third shifts as the second shift commences from 4.00 p.m. and the third shift commences from 12.30 a.m., thus the concession was not extended to these workers. However, an alternate concession was given by asking these workmen to work in a weekly holiday so that the wages can be provided even for the workmen, who worked on second and third shifts.
24. The adjudication of merits and demerits cannot be undertaken by the Labour Court in a petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Section 33C(2) stipulates that "where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the 12/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch appropriate Government". Thus, there must be an entitlement and pre-existing right, which is the pre-condition for entertaining a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the absence of any such pre-existing right or entitlement, no petition can be entertained for the purpose of computing the monetary value or the benefits. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the 3 judges of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P and Another vs. Brijpal Singh [MANU/SC/2466/2005 : 2005-III- LLJ 1003]. The relevant paragraphs-10 and 12 of the judgment are extracted as under:
"10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed under Section 33-C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under Section 33-A or on a reference under Section 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand [MANU/SC/0273/1978 : (1978) 2 SCC 144: 1978 SCC (L&S) 165] held that a proceeding under 13/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch Section 33-C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court held that the right to the money which is sought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer. This Court further held as follows: (SCC p. 150, para 4) "It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the Act."14/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch In the case of Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v.
Ganesh Razak [MANU/SC/0532/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 235: 1995 SCC (L&S) 296: (1995) 29 ATC 93] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 241-42, paras 12-13) "12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the executing court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.
13. In these matters, the claim of the respondent workmen who were all daily-
rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workmen on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33-C(2). The mere fact that some other workmen are 16/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is indicative of the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement to the benefit before computation of such a benefit could be sought. Respondents' claim is not based on a prior adjudication made in the writ petitions filed by some other workmen upholding a similar claim which could be relied on as an adjudication enuring to the benefit of these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some other workmen to which some reference was casually made, particulars of which are not available in these matters, have, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose. It must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court as well as the High Court were in error in treating as maintainable the applications made under Section 33-C(2) of the Act by these respondents."
12. Thus, it is clear from the principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding before a 17/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch forum to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. Therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondent workman cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages. It is, therefore, impossible for us to accept the arguments of Mrs. Shyamla Pappu that the respondent workman can file application under Section 33-C(2) for determination and payment of wages on the basis that he continues to be in service pursuant to the said order passed by the 18/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch High Court in Writ Petition No.15172 of 1987 dated 28-10-1987. The argument by the learned counsel for the workman has no force and is unacceptable. The Labour Court, in our opinion, has erred in allowing the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act and ordering payment of not only the salary but also bonus to the workman although he has not attended the office of the appellants after the stay order obtained by him. The Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in passing the order in 23-09-2022 (Page 8 of 10) question which was rightly impugned before the High Court and erroneously dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has also equally committed a manifest error in not considering the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1993 dated 23-8-1995 and the order dated 9-1-2002 passed by the High Court in CMWP No. 36406 of 1995 as illegal and uncalled for. We do so accordingly."
19/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
14. In view of the principles settled, the order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to be set aside.
15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-employee objected the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Board by stating that the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, will prevail over as the first respondent in all these writ petitions were workmen during the relevant point of time and their service conditions were governed under 12(3) Settlement. As per the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the first respondent is entitled for regularisation, since the said benefit was not granted, the petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Court and thus there is no infirmity as such.
16. The Labour Court considered the long services of the first respondent-employee and further based on the terms and conditions of settlement and considering Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status 20/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch Act, granted retrospective regularisation from the date on which the first respondent completed 480 days of service in the Board and therefore, there is no perversity and consequently, the writ petition is to be rejected.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner is a State. The services of the employees working in the petitioner-
Board are governed by its own Service Regulations and the Board adopted the Service Rules applicable to the Government Servants and those service conditions are applicable to its employees. When the Special Service Rules are in force governing the service conditions of the employees of the Board, general Statutes and Rules would not be applicable.
18. This being the principles, the provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, is not applicable in respect of the employees working in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. Even in case, where there is a Settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and any of the conditions agreed or violated, then there must be an 21/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch adjudication of disputed issues by way of an industrial dispute before the Competent Labour Court.
19. In these cases, the first respondent had not raised any dispute for adjudication and the disputed issues were not adjudicated. In the absence of any such adjudication and crystallisation of the rights of the parties, petition under Section 33-C(2) would be not maintainable. Thus, the Labour Court erroneously assumed the jurisdiction by entertaining the petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and granted the benefit of retrospective regularisation by invoking Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act.
20. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court has confused the entire issue and also the applicability of the relevant provisions of law and the Service Rules, including the service conditions applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board.
22/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
21. It is not as if that the Labour Court can take any general legislation in respect of the Board employees apply the provisions and grant the relief. The Labour Court is expected to find out the relevant and applicable provisions regarding the service conditions of the Board employees and consider the issues. Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court is perverse and not in consonance with the established principles of service jurisprudence.
22. Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of the Recruitment Rules in force. In these cases, the service conditions of the employees of the Board are governed under the Service Regulations adopted by the Board, which is in force. Thus, the benefit of regularisation, permanent absorption or retrospective regularisation cannot be granted contrary to the provisions of the Service Rules applicable to the Board employees.
23. Further, the first respondent-employee and other similarly 23/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch placed employees were absorbed from local bodies to the services of the petitioner-Board and subsequently, granted the benefit of consolidated pay salary and thereafter, the time scale of pay based on the Government Order issued. Considering the long services, they were brought under the regular establishment and their services were regularised.
24. As far as the grant of retrospective regularisation is concerned, these employees accepting the terms and conditions of the daily wage employment and consolidated salary employment, had worked and therefore, now the benefit of retrospective regularisation cannot be granted in violation of Service Rules applicable to the Board employees. The benefit of regularisation granted by the Board itself is a concession extended by the Government based on the length of services rendered by these temporary employees.
25. Temporary daily rated employees, who were appointed in violation of the Recruitment Rules are not entitled even for regularisation the pursuant to the principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble 24/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1].
26. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal [2011 (2) SCC 429] held in unequivocal terms that "the High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee, which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised".
25/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
27. Therefore, the employees, who were appointed without adhering to the Recruitment Rules are not entitled for regularisation and permanent absorption. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court by way of one time arrangement permitted the respective State Governments to regularise the services in respect of the proposals, which were pending during the relevant point of time and the said one time arrangement cannot be continued in perpetuity. Thus the Government also stopped granting regularisation or permanent absorption in violation of the rules and necessary orders were issued. When the benefit of regularisation itself was granted by way of concession, retrospective regularisation cannot be granted for the purpose of receiving the monetary benefits by way of approaching the Labour Court, more-so, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
28. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Board made a submission that the cases of the similarly placed persons were considered for grant of retrospective regularisation. However, those orders were passed long back and such erroneous orders even if passed by the Government or 26/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch the Board, cannot be followed by the Courts in violation of the principles settled by the Constitution Bench.
29. Irregular and illegal orders cannot be followed by the Courts for the purpose of granting similar relief. The principles in this regard are also settled by the Courts in the case of Director of Sericulture Department, Salem. and Others vs. K. Kumar and Others [2015 (4) CTC 241], wherein the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 34, 35 and 41 observed as under:-
“34. It is true that consistency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees obtained orders at the stage of admission, on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public interest.27/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [AIR 1988 SC 1531]. It was observed in the said decision that “in rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the Court because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court.” The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court.
Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1) by writ petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission and (2) by getting those orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other cases, did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and Special Grades. Hence, the 28/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch second contention of the writ petitioners is also liable to be rejected.
41. In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(2010) 2 SCC 422], the Supreme Court, relying upon its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 65], held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. The Court further held that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. Interestingly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal was subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is also referred to in Kartick Chandra Mondal. “
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of 29/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], in clear terms held that “It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Higher or Superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of 30/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch administration impossible.”
31. Therefore, the benefit of regularisation and retrospective regularisation granted either by the Government or by the Board or by the Courts on earlier occasions would not be a ground to claim the same benefit in perpetuity or any person can insist the Court to pass such similar orders, which is otherwise held as illegal.
32. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. All eligible citizen, who all are aspiring to secure public employment must be provided with an opportunity to participate in the Open Competitive Process. Rule of reservation is the constitutional mandate. Thus any recruitment process must be done under the constitutional schemes and by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates. The equality clause enunciated at no circumstances allowed to be diluted or done away with. In the event of granting regularisation or permanent absorption or retrospective regularisation, the fundamental rights of all eligible candidates are infringed and as there is no procedures 31/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch followed. Thus the irregular and illegal back door appointments can never be regularised and the benefit of permanent absorption cannot be extended.
Only on certain extreme circumstances, the Government has granted the benefit of regularisation taking note of the legnth of services and even such benefits cannot be granted in violation of the fundamental rights of the other citizen.
33. Therefore, this Court is of an opinon that the benefit of regularisation granted to the temporary employees itself is a concession extended and they are not entitled for the retrospective regularisation that too with monetary benefits, which is erroneously granted by the Labour Court in violation of the settled principles of law.
34. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesittion in arriving a conclusion that the orders of the Labour Court in CP No.148 to 170 of 2008 dated 14.10.2015 are infirm and not in consonance with the principles of law and accordingly, the orders of the Labour Court 32/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch are quashed.
35. Consequently, all the writ petitions stand allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22-09-2022 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn To
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
33/35https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch
2.The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn 34/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch WPs 26632 to 26654 of 2016 22-09-2022 35/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis