Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1449 (MAD)

Rukku v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

2002-11-22

E.PADMANABHAN

body2002
Judgment :- In all the above writ petitions, the petitioner in each of the writ petition has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or direction directing the respondents to fulfill their promise by providing suitable employment to the petitioner or petitioner's son or ward in the 4th respondent LPG Bottling Plant located at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi. 2. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs.V.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.Sahadevan learned counsel appearing for SIPCOT and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms.T.S.Gopalan & Co., for respondents 4 and 5. 3. With the consent of counsel for either side these writ petitions and the connected WMPs are taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioners claim that their lands were acquired for the purpose of expansion of industrial complex to set up LPG bottling plant. The objections raised by the petitioners for acquisition were overruled. The petitioners did not challenge the acquisition and the petitioners were paid only a meager sum. The petitioners are affected by the acquisition of land and eligible for employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment, dated 28.6.1978. Despite the G.O directing employment to persons displaced by the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners or their wards or sons are denied of employment in the LPG Bottling Plant. It is the claim of the petitioners that their family has no income and they are the eligible family members who could be appointed in any one of the vacancies in the 4th respondent LPG Plants. The respondents are obliged to offer employment to the petitioners or their sons or wards as the case may be and at least one member from each family should be given employment by way of rehabilitation consequent to the entire lands owned by the respective petitioners. 5. These writ petitions are being resisted by the respondents 4 and 5 contending that no case has been made out for issue of mandamus on the facts of the case. The respondents 4 and 5 have put up LPG Bottling plant in the Industrial Estate of SPICOT of Gummidipoondi after taking 50.90 acres on lease for 99 years from SIPCOT. The lands were acquired for the purpose of SIPCOT. The respondents 4 and 5 have put up LPG Bottling plant in the Industrial Estate of SPICOT of Gummidipoondi after taking 50.90 acres on lease for 99 years from SIPCOT. The lands were acquired for the purpose of SIPCOT. The lands were not acquired for the purpose of respondents 4 and 5, but it was acquired for the purpose of SIPCOT Industrial Complex at Gummidipoondi. In terms of the lease entered between the SIPCOT and the respondents 4 and 5, 10% of the jobs in the Plant is reserved to the members of the family of the displaced land owners subject to eligibility and qualification in Class III and IV jobs. 6. According to the respondents the plant was commissioned during March 1997 and at that time required man power was determined at 22. Despite the reminders the District Collector and the third respondent did not sponsor the names and hence the 22 vacancies were filled up by direct recruitment as well as deployment from other locations. It is also stated a number of displaced persons moved number of writ petitions since 1997 onwards. Pending the writ petitions, interim orders were passed and the respondents 4 and 5 moved applications to vacate the interim directions. On 27.4.2000 this court directed the respondents 4 and 5 to invite applications from all eligible persons who have been displaced by the land acquisition proceedings and engage 22 of them as a temporary measure, whom they find suitable and eligible to be appointed in respect of 22 vacancies. The said engagement is a temporary measure. In terms of the order of this court 25 candidates were empanelled in the list of casual vacancies and 22 are being engaged. The process of selection for regular appointment was simultaneously undertaken among the candidates whose lands have been acquired. 73 persons responded to the written test, 34 of them qualified for interview and out of that 5 were offered regular employment. The list of 22 candidates who are in the panel of casual labour are given in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and list of 5 candidates among the land giver families who were offered regular employment is given in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The list of 22 candidates who are in the panel of casual labour are given in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and list of 5 candidates among the land giver families who were offered regular employment is given in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. By the appointment of 5 candidates from the land giver families, the obligation of providing employment to the members of the land giver families as per terms of the lease deed, has been fully complied with. At the time when the second shift operation was to commence the manpower requirement for both shifts was assessed at 44 and now it has come down to 41 because of introduction of automation. It is contended that the G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 29.6.1978 is not applicable to respondents 4 and 5. The recruitment has been done in a most transparent manner. 7. Annexures to the counter affidavit read thus:- ANNEXURE-A PAPs-Casual Engagement Sl .No -- Name of Candidates -- Name of Land owners -- Survey No. 1. -- M. Vasudevan -- Munusamy -- S.No.3/90 2. -- D. Sukumar -- Dakshinamurthy -- S.No.3/90 3. -- T. G.Suriyamurthy -- G. Parvathiammal -- S.No.3/90 4. -- C. Shanmugam -- Chinnaraj -- S.No.3/90 5. -- T. Durai -- Durai -- S.No.3/90 6. -- P. M.Karthikeyan -- P.B.Mani -- S.No.6/92 7. -- R. Raja -- K.S.Roja -- S.No.6/92 8. -- C . Saravanan -- Chinnadurai -- S.No.6/92 9. -- P . Babu -- P . Subramaniam -- S.No.6/92 10. -- M . Dinakaran -- Anjammal -- S.No.6/92 11. -- S . Babu -- P . Krishnan -- S.No.6/92 12. -- G . Sekar -- Govindraju -- S.No.6/92 13. -- N . Venkatesan -- K . Nataraja Reddy -- S.No.6/92 14. -- C . Kumar -- Chockkalingam -- S.No.6/92 15. -- P . Gowthaman -- Saroja -- S.No.6/92 16. -- G . Ramesh -- K . Gopal -- S.No.6/92 17. -- G . Ramesh -- A . Govindasamy -- S.No.6/92 18. -- S . Saravanan -- Jayammal -- S.No.6/92 19. -- S . Raghu -- K . Singaram -- S.No.6/92 20. -- G . Nareshkumar -- Gnanamurthi -- S.No.6/92 21. -- M . S.Palani -- Babu -- S.No.6/92 22. -- G . Saravanan -- Ganesan -- S.No.6/92 ANNEXURE-B LIST OF PAPs RECRUITED Sl . No. --- Name of Candidate --- Name of Land Owner -- Survey No. 1. ---- G . Raghu -- K . Singaram -- S.No.6/92 20. -- G . Nareshkumar -- Gnanamurthi -- S.No.6/92 21. -- M . S.Palani -- Babu -- S.No.6/92 22. -- G . Saravanan -- Ganesan -- S.No.6/92 ANNEXURE-B LIST OF PAPs RECRUITED Sl . No. --- Name of Candidate --- Name of Land Owner -- Survey No. 1. ---- G . Srinivasan --- C.S.Gananasundaram -- 3/90 ----- R . Arumaiselvan -- P . RangasamyReddy -- 3/90 ----- D . Murali -- Devaraj -- 6/92 ----- J . Veeran -- Perumal Reddiar -- 3/90 ------ D . Mohanvel -- M . Gunaseelan -- 6/92 8. According to the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 the said respondents have complied with the condition stipulated in the lease deed viz., 10% of the total jobs in the Industrial Units coming up in the Industrial Complex to be reserved for the members of the land owners whose lands have been acquired subject to eligibility as per qualification prescribed for the jobs. Clause 33 reads thus:- "33. Ten Percent of the jobs in the Industrial Units coming up in the Industrial Complex, shall be reserved to the members of the families of land owners whose lands have been acquired for the industrial complex, subject to eligibility as per qualifications prescribed for the jobs." 9. In terms of the affidavit the total workers employed in the LPG Plant being 44, the respondents are bound to employ 5 persons from and out of the families of the land owners whose lands have been acquired. As set out in the counter affidavit respondents 4 and 5 have already employed 22 casuals out of whom 5 persons have been recruited as against permanent vacancies under the land owners category. It is contended as set out in the counter affidavit the lands in question have not been acquired exclusively for respondents 4 and 5, but it has been acquired by the SIPCOT. SIPCOT while granting the lease has stipulated a condition that 10% of the total workers shall be reserved for members of the families whose lands have been acquired. It is now contended that the respondents have complied with the said condition. 10. It is contended that The petitioners cannot rely upon the Government Orders nor they could rely upon the pronouncement of this court in 1992 WLR page 498 (Dharanipathy Lakshmi Devi Vs. Secretary to Govt. It is now contended that the respondents have complied with the said condition. 10. It is contended that The petitioners cannot rely upon the Government Orders nor they could rely upon the pronouncement of this court in 1992 WLR page 498 (Dharanipathy Lakshmi Devi Vs. Secretary to Govt. Of T.N. And 3 others), W.P.Nos:3490 of 1999 etc., batch (Thulukkanam Vs. Govt. of T.N and Ors) or for that matter the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 101 (Calcutta Port Trust Vs. Deba Prosad Bag and others). The learned senior counsel contended that the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the above said pronouncements and the pronouncements will not apply. . 11. Reliance has been placed on the order of P.SATHASIVAM,J., IN W.P.Nos:3490 of 1999 etc batch which is passed in respect of Bottling Plant commissioned by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the case is identical in all respect. But Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 points out that HPCL has not brought to the notice of the learned Judge about the term of lease which provides for 10% of the employment to the displaced persons and therefore the said pronouncement has no application to the facts of the case. There is force in the submission made by the learned senior cousnel. Taking into consideration of the fact that the lands were acquired for SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi, which in turn has leased out the lands to the respondent-Bottling plant and when there is a stipulation in the lease deed, while holding that the respondents 4 and 5 have complied with the stipulations agreed upon, but to render substantial justice, this court issues the following directions on the facts of the case, while accepting the distinction pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 12. As fairly admitted, the respondents 4 and 5 have to reserve 10% of the post for the members of the displaced families provided if they possess the qualification. As seen from the counter affidavit 5 persons have been appointed on permanent basis and the remaining out of 22 are being engaged as casuals. 12. As fairly admitted, the respondents 4 and 5 have to reserve 10% of the post for the members of the displaced families provided if they possess the qualification. As seen from the counter affidavit 5 persons have been appointed on permanent basis and the remaining out of 22 are being engaged as casuals. In the circumstances, while holding that the respondents 4 and 5 have complied with their obligation which they have undertaken, this court issues the following directions:- (i)The respondents 4 and 5 shall reserve 10% of the permanent vacancies in the LPG Bottling Plant, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi for the families of the land owners whose lands have been acquired in terms of Clause 33 of the lease deed and that reservation shall be maintained as per the lease deed stipulation. (ii)The remaining Seventeen casuals who are being engaged since 2000 by the respondents 4 and 5 in the LPG Bottling Plant, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi as casuals shall be continued to be engaged as casuals and since they have been working for a considerable period, that apart the said respondents 4 and 5 require casuals in the Bottling Plant, the status of those casuals shall improve as and when they are eligible to become "workman" as per the statutory provisions and they shall also be absorbed in the usual course permanently as and when vacancy arises and they shall not be ousted on any ground whatsoever. 13. With the above directions, the above writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.