Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3125 (MAD)

E. Tamilselvan v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2013-08-30

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
ORDER : 1. The petitioners are unemployed graduates. They filed this Writ Petition seeking for a declaration to declare that the action of the third respondent in engaging contractor/ contract employees or employees who had gone on Voluntary Retirement Scheme to do the skilled work is contrary to G.O. (Ms) No. 110, Industries (MIC-1) Department, dated 7.8.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the third respondent Mill is a Co-Operative Society Mill. The Mill was closed due to financial difficulties and thereafter, the Mill was revived by the Government by pumping huge amount. In these circumstances, the Government issued G.O. (Ms) No. 110, Industries (MIC-1) Department, dated 7.8.2010 issuing certain directions. According to the petitioners, as per the directions contained in the said G.O. the third respondent Mill cannot employ contract labours or employees who went under VRS. 2. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no prohibition in G.O. (Ms) No. 110, Industries (MIC-1) Department, dated 7.8.2010, relied on by the petitioners to engage contract labourers. The contract system is permitted and the same is not totally abolished in law. If at all, any person is aggrieved over the contract system, such person should approach the competent authority under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970. Thus, the petitioners have no jurisdiction to question the employment of contract labourers by the third respondent Mill. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also submitted that all the employees in the third respondent went on VRS due to closure of the Mill and the closure was due to serious financial crisis. At that time when the Mill was closed, it was thought that the Mill could not be revived and when the Mill was revived by the assistance of the Government, the erstwhile, employees who went under VRS and who are within 58 years, cannot be denied fresh employment. 4. I have considered the submissions made by either side. I have perused G.O. (Ms) No. 110, Industries (MIC-1) Department, dated 7.8.2010. The petitioners have relied on Para 5(e) which reads as follows:- "5(e) The Commissioner of Sugar is requested to issue suitable instructions to the Madurantakam Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. to re-deploy the employees from other sugar mills where there are excess staff/workers instead of going for 100% fresh recruitment." 5. The petitioners have relied on Para 5(e) which reads as follows:- "5(e) The Commissioner of Sugar is requested to issue suitable instructions to the Madurantakam Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. to re-deploy the employees from other sugar mills where there are excess staff/workers instead of going for 100% fresh recruitment." 5. In my considered view, Para 5(e) of the said G.O. does not prevent the third respondent Sugar Mill from employing the contract labourers or the employees who went under VRS. It is not in dispute that all the employees in the third respondent Mill went under VRS when the Mill was closed due to financial crisis. The Mill was revived due to financial assistance from the Government. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong in giving fresh employment to the persons who went under VRS. Those employees have possessed required skill to handle the work and they have rich experience. If a public sector undertaking is closed and employees are retrenched, employees who are given some benefits like VRS, are also accommodated in some other public sector undertakings by way of Government Orders. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in accommodating the employees, who went under VRS, particularly, if they are below the age of retirement. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.