C. Mahalingam and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu <BR>D. Jayasankaran and Others Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D. Murugesan, J.—The batch of writ petitions questions the letter dated 26.12.2002 issued by the Agricultural Production Commissioner

and Secretary to Government. By that order, the request of the petitioners to consider them on par with TANCOF employees who have been

attached to Agriculture Department was rejected. These petitioners are all the employees of Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development

Corporation Limited (for short, ""the Corporation"") attached to Agriculture Department. By G.O.Ms. No. 339 Agriculture (AE.II) Department

dated 28.11.2001, the Government, having regard to the accumulated loss sustained by the Corporation, directed the closure of the Corporation.

On the date when the closure was ordered, there were 329 employees. The employees including the petitioners numbering 237 were issued with

the notices u/s 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the permission of the State Government was sought to retrench these employees. The

said move was opposed. But, nevertheless, the Government passed orders in G.O.(D) No. 163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated

26.2.2002 retrenching the employees. At the time when such order was passed, the Agriculture Department was also requested to give

sympathetic consideration for the rehabilitation of the workmen and to extend all concession and benefits permissible. It appears that by the

impugned order, the said request was rejected giving rise to the present writ petitions.

I have heard Mr. R. Singaravelan & Mr. R.Karthikeyan, respective learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sneha, learned Government

Advocate for the State.

The controversy lies in a narrow compass. There is no dispute that the Corporation was ordered to be closed on account of the accumulated

loss and the difficulties experienced in the continuance of the Corporation. The Government therefore issued the Government Order for closure

and the employees were retrenched. After retrenchment, as many as 36 employees, who are similarly placed like the petitioners, have been

absorbed in Agricultural Department by G.O.Ms. No. 241 Agriculture (AE) Department dated 8.8.2002. A copy of the said Government Order

is annexed to the typed-set of papers in W.P. No. 13888 of 2003. By that order, the employees, who were retrenched, have been taken back

with a further direction that whatever the ex-gratia amount paid to them should be recovered in monthly instalments from their salary. In terms of

Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, in case of absorption after retrenchment as against the available post, such absorption should be on the

basis of seniority. These 36 employees were retrenched subsequent to the petitioners and the same is not in dispute and equally the fact that they

have been taken back into service is also not in dispute. That apart, the G.O.(D). No. 163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated

26.2.2002 had directed that the grievance of the retrenched employees should be considered sympathetically. The rehabilitation as intended by the

Government does not reflect in the impugned order, which is only a letter addressed by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to

Government. The said letter, in my opinion, is contrary to the Government Order dated 26.2.2002. The impugned order also does not say as to

why the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered on par with the TANCOF employees.

The petitioners have also raised the question of discrimination meted out to them compared to the treatment given to the TANCOF employees

in absorbing them into service. The respondents have a defence to say that they were deputed to the said federation and engaged on contract basis

for a period of 3 months + 3 months and later on they were absorbed. Such deputation was made on the basis of the option given by them,

whereas the petitioners have not opted and therefore they cannot be equated to them. In this regard, the submission of the learned Government

Advocate must be accepted.

Be that as it may, for the reasons that as many as 36 employees, who were similarly situated, have been absorbed by G.O.Ms. No. 241

Agriculture (AE) Department dated 8.8.2002, particularly they being retrenched subsequently when compared to the petitioners, and having

regard to the G.O.(D) No. 163 Labour and Employment (A1) Department dated 26.2.2002 directing rehabilitation of the retrenched employees

of the Corporation, I do not find any justification in the impugned letter rejecting the request of the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned Letter

Ms. No. 421 dated 26.12.2002 is set aside. The respondent-Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government is directed to

consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically for absorption in any other department to which they are eligible. Such exercise shall be

completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.