The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Right to re-employment: claims dismissed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Right to re-employment: claims dismissed

Special Correspondent

So-called non-employment does not come under retrenchment: High Court Government directed to provide re-employment to persons who have completed 240 days in respective corporations

CHENNAI: While appointing bus drivers and conductors, the Government cannot place those who worked with various transport corporations only for a few days on a higher pedestal than those duly registered with employment exchanges, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Dismissing the employment claims of persons who had worked during festivals and other contingencies, Justice K. Chandru said: "If persons who worked only for 11 days and 20 days occasionally, and whose so-called non-employment did not come within the term retrenchment, certainly, by an administrative order, the Government cannot create any preference for these persons and place them on a higher pedestal than people who have registered their names in the employment exchanges, and waiting for their cases to be considered through direct recruitment after a proper selection by a competent body." The matter relates to a series of cases relating to the right to re-employment of persons affected by retrenchment drivers during the past 10 years.

While a Division Bench directed the Government to provide re-employment to persons who had completed 240 days in the respective corporations, the previous Government decided to recruit 2,000 drivers and 700 conductors. However, though appointment orders were despatched to the candidates no posting orders could be issued as the Assembly elections intervened.

In June 2006, the new Government issued an order stating that the Division Bench order directing appointment of eligible, retrenched workers would be complied with. It also specified that "similarly placed" persons, whose cases were still pending, too would be considered for appointment.

This order gave rise to further litigation, as the candidates who were selected but could not be posted by the previous government approached the High Court. As a concession, the Government informed a Division Bench later that it would appoint those drivers and conductors selected by the AIADMK Government as well.

However, many more petitions were filed seeking employment under the "similarly placed persons" category. Mr. Justice Chandru, observing that the loosely worded order would become a "source of corruption," asked Advocate-General R. Viduthalai to clarify the real import of the term. Mr. Viduthalai also clarified that it would not apply to persons who had not actually worked under the Corporation but made a bogus claim.

Upholding the validity of transport corporation orders, rejecting the employment claims of ineligible persons, the Judge then said the right to re-employment would have to be determined only if an employee's retrenchment came within the definition of the term retrenchment found in the ID Act.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu