Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Ramanathapuram District Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam has filed Writ Petition No. 20925 of 1994 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in G.O.No. 287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C2) Department dated 14.10.1993 quash the same and forbear the respondents 1 to 3 therein from handing over the 4th respondent-Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills to P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar, Coimbatore.

5. Anna Textile Workers Union in Writ Petition No.4455 of 1996 challenges the Government Order (2D) No. 26, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C-2) dated 28.9.95 published on 22.11.1995 declaring the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation as a Relief Undertaking.

11. The Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit in both the writ petitions raising similar contentions, accordingly I am not referring to the same once again.

12. In W.P.No.4455 of 1996, Anna Textile Workers Union has contended that there is absolutely no warrant for passing the impugned order, namely, G.O. (2D) No. 26, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C2) dated 28th September, 1955 declaring the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation as a Relief Undertaking. In view of the particulars furnished in the earlier paragraphs, I am not referring to the same once again.

30. Regarding the relief prayed for in W.P.No.20925 of 1994, Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would contend that after enacting appropriate legislation, namely Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 86 taking over the Mill and after spending several lakhs of public money, it is not open to the Government to hand over and restore the mill to the erstwhile owner. No doubt, by the impugned order, the Government has imposed certain conditions. Inspite of the fact that certain conditions have been imposed for handing over the mill to the erstwhile owner, taking note of the objects and reasons mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 86, particularly to safeguard the employees of the said Mill and giving effect to the polices towards securing principles laid down in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the Government is not justified in passing the impugned Order, namely, G.O.No. 287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi) Department dated 14.10.1993. It is true that the Government as well as Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation furnished a number of reasons for their inability to continue the Mill. However, as rightly said, after acquiring the Mill by a valid Legislation, for valid reasons, merely because there is a financial crises, it is not open to the State Government to restore it to the erst- while owner by imposing certain conditions. Having said that to safe guard the public interest and in particular the employees of the said Mill and after making categorical declaration in securing the principles laid down in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution, the action of the State Government cannot be appreciated. As a matter of fact, if the contention of the Government is accepted, undoubtedly it goes against the object of the Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 86 which I have already upheld in W.P.No.1979 of 1988. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order in G.O.No.287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi) Department dated 14.10.1993 is liable to be quashed.

(iii) For the reasons stated above, G.O.No. 287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts. Textiles and Khadi) (C2) Department dated 14.10.1993 is quashed and the respondents 1 to 3 therein are restrained from handing over the fourth respondent Mill to the fifth respondent; accordingly Writ Petition No. 20925 of 1994 is allowed as prayed for.
(iv) In view of the fact that the one year period mentioned in G.O. (2D) No. 26. Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C2) dated 28.9.1995 expired even on 27.9.1996 and in the light of the interim order by this Court during the said period, nothing survives for adjudication; accordingly Writ Petition No. 4455 of 1996 is dismissed.