S.A. No. 100 of 2003. Case: Special Officer, Rasipuram Silk Handlooms Weaver Cooperative Production & Sales Society Limited Vs K. Raja. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 100 of 2003 |
| Counsel | J. R. K. Bhavanandam |
| Judges | R. Mala, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India, 1950 Article 15; Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - Section 156; Limitation Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 9; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(k) |
| Judgement Date | December 23, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
R. Mala, J.
-
The appellant-defendant has filed the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2002 in A.S.No.132 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1997 in O.S.No.368 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram.
-
The averments in the plaint are as follows:
The respondent-plaintiff appeared for the interview for the post of Attender on 23.12.1991, vide appellant-defendant's letter dated 20.12.1991. His name was nominated along with others, to the defendant, by the Assistant Director, Employment Office, Salem. He was appointed as Attender. He received the appointment order dated 4.2.1992 from the defendant. He joined duty on 5.2.1992 as an Attender in the appellant-defendant-Society. He remitted a security deposit of Rs.1,000/- on 17.2.1992. He was working sincerely, honestly and worked to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. The respondent-plaintiff belongs to Backward Community. His appointment order does not contain any details as to whether he was appointed under Backward Community quota or in excess of Backward Community quota. The shortfall, if any in the Most Backward Community quota can be rectified by the appellant-defendant by recruiting more persons from the Community concerned, but without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, he was told by the appellant-defendant on 29.9.1992 that his services were terminated, alleging that there was a shortfall in the MBC quota. The respondent-plaintiff was recruited as per the Rules prescribed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-ooerative Societies Rules, 1988, through the District Employment Exchange. The respondent-plaintiff had already discontinued his B.A. Degree course on 5.2.1992 in order to join the above post. Without his fault, the defendant is trying to terminate the plaintiff's services. The above action is highly illegal, unconstitutional and in gross violation of the defects due to reservation polity of the Government and those who have already been selected, have to be regularly appointed by creating additional post. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction against the defendant restraining him from terminating the services of the appellant-defendant. But after filing of the written statement, the plaintiff amended the plaint for declaration that the alleged order dated 29.9.1992 terminating the plaintiff from the services from 30.9.1992 on the ground that his appointment was made on 4.2.1992 in excess of quota for BC or against the quota for MBC, is arbitrary, null and void and also sought for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff in service from 30.9.1992. He prayed for a decree.
-
The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
The civil suit is not maintainable. This Court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff was already terminated from service on 30.9.1992. He was appointed as Attender. There is no necessity to give any details as to on what basis he was appointed. On 29.9.1992 itself, the order of termination has been passed, and the plaintiff was aware of the same. He was terminated in accordance with law. There were two vacancies in the Attender post and by the order passed on 11.11.1991 and 16.11.1992, a letter has been addressed to the District Employment Officer to forward the eligible candidates. It was categorically stated that the post is only temporary and likely to be continued beyond one year. The appellant-defendant received the list of candidates and then only, interview was conducted. The plaintiff as well as one Sakthi Doss were selected and they were appointed. On 10.4.1992, they received letter from the District Employment Office, stating that they are not following the communal rotation. Since Sakthi Doss has been appointed in the Open Competition quota, and the respondent-plaintiff, who is in the BC category, was appointed under MBC quota and hence, he was terminated from service. A resolution was passed on 29.9.1992 and termination order was passed. He refused to receive the termination order and he has not attended the Office on 30.9.1992. So, the termination order has been communicated through Certificate of Posting. The plaintiff is entitled to file appeal under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the Registrar and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
-
After amendment of the plaint, the defendant filed additional written statement. The gist of the same is as follows:
The plaintiff is not entitled for...
To continue reading
Request your trial