High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 02 MAD CK 0011

M.Yogananthavel vs The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited(TASMAC)

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.Vaidyanathan
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
2891 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the Petitioner''s representation, dated 9.12.2016 and allow

the Petitioner to continue in service by reinstating the Petitioner into service.

2.

Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent/TASMAC. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is

taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.

The Petitioner has submitted that he joined the services of the respondent/Corporation as Salesman and that his father, who is unwell and there

is no one to take care of him. Hence, he could not attend the work from 2010. Hence he was transferred from the above shop by the authorities

concerned, by order, dated 8.2.2004.The Petitioner has not produced any evidence to that effect except the medical prescription, dated

12.10.2016, stating that he has been suffering from jaundice and there is no proof to that effect.

4.

According to the respondent, the Petitioner has not reported for work and he has abandoned the service.

5.

Admittedly, the Petitioner is a workman. If there is any denial of employment, the Petitioner can raise industrial dispute and seek for necessary

relief through appropriate forum. In view of the amendment to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, industrial disputes has to be raised

within three years. In order to circumvent the amended provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Petitioner has come forward with the

aforesaid Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. A perusal of the records would show that there is a delay of 7 years in filing the present Writ

Petition. Moreover, there are several people who are waiting in the queue to seek for employment in Government. On technical grounds, the

Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to give a new life to his case, which was filed with a delay of 7 years. Hence this Court finds no merit

in the prayer sought for by the Petitioner to consider his representation.

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.