Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Before the CGIT, among other objections, JIPMER had also contended that the petitioner Union has no locus standi to raise a dispute on behalf of the DRLs. Anticipating that similar objection may be raised while the order of the learned Single Judge is challenged, 547 individual DRLs had challenged the order of the Writ Court before us in W.A.No.222 of 2025. The JIPMER Hospital Employees Union had also challenged the same order in W.A.No.3187 of 2023. Both the appeals, since arises out of the same order, are disposed of through this common judgment.

7. Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for both the JIPMER Union, as well as the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/12/2025 01:44:42 pm )  W.A.Nos.3187 of 2023 & 222 of 2025 DRLs, claims that the long engagement of the services of these DRLs for more than a decade by JIPMER was with the sole object of depriving them of the status, privileges of the permanent workmen, which amounts to unfair labour practices on the part of the employer. According to him, the work extracted from these DRLs were perennial in nature and the non- sanctioning of posts by the Union Territory is patently arbitrary and with malafides, in which circumstance, both CGIT and the High Court will be justified in exercising the powers of the judicial review. By pointing out to the nature of duties extracted from the DRLs, he stressed that these are basic day-to-day work to run a hospital and the failure on the part of the Management to regularize their services or have sanctioned posts, would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/12/2025 01:44:42 pm )  W.A.Nos.3187 of 2023 & 222 of 2025

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on the either side.

11. Before we address the core issue of these appeals, it would be relevant to observe that JIPMER had taken a specific stand before the CGIT, as well as in the Writ Petition that the JIPMER Union has no locus standi to raise the disputes on behalf of the DRLs. The learned Additional Solicitor General, during the course of arguments, fairly submitted that he is not pressing the ground of locus standi in these appeals. Hence, we refrain from addressing this aspect which was dealt with both by the CGIT, as well as the Writ Court, which order is impugned in these Writ Appeals.

13. Before CGIT, it is the specific case of the DRLs that among the numerous members of the JIPMER Union, the earliest of them were engaged in the year 1987, while majority of them were engaged during 1991-2001. It was also claimed that few of them were engaged during 2005-2006.

14. In the counter-statement filed before CGIT, JIPMER had disputed the number of DRLs claimed by the Union, but had not denied the claim of having worked for the past 10 years. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition by JIPMER, that almost all the claimants before CGIT had completed 10 years of continuous service, has not been denied. However, in the counter-affidavit filed before us, as well as the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General, it is claimed that none of the DRLs had completed atleast 5 years of service on the date when the dispute was raised before CGIT. The counter-affidavit also affirms that the services of the DRLs were continued during the pendency of the industrial dispute before CGIT and even thereafter, in view of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/12/2025 01:44:42 pm )  W.A.Nos.3187 of 2023 & 222 of 2025 pendency of various litigations raised by them, but not on account of interim orders of the Courts.