Heard both sides.
2. This writ petition arises out of O.A.No.2697 of 1998 filed before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. The five petitioners who were employed in the Boat House under the control of the fourth respondent sought for a direction to regularise their services in the post of Bill Clerk under the third respondent.
3. The Original Application was admitted and pending the OA, the Tribunal granted an interim direction dated 01.04.1998 directing the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioners. The said order was directed to be continued until further orders by a subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 12.05.1998.
4. Mr.John, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 stated that the petitioners 2 to 4 were terminated as early as 01.03.1998 and they never questioned the termination in any competent forum. The 5th petitioner had already got employment and had left the service. It is only the first petitioner who is continuing in service on the strength of the interim order.
5. He also produced a letter dated 01.09.2009 sent by the third respondent stating that 300 employees of the Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC) were got retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) due to a policy decision taken by the TTDC for reducing their man power. The third respondent had already outsourced the work of 'D' category workmen in all the Hotels and Boat Houses in pursuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.NO.49 P& AR Reforms (F) Department, dated 14.05.2002, wherein, the Government had issued orders to all the Government companies including TTDC to outsource the work of 'D' category workmen. The Board Meeting Minutes in this regard as well as the VRS Scheme introduced by the State Government were also produced. If the first petitioner so requires, he can be accommodated through outsourcing agency and there is no vacancy for the first petitioner to be accommodated in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation.
6. When it was questioned as to why the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of VRS, the learned counsel submitted that the first petitioner was terminated long ago but for the Tribunal's interim order dated 01.04.1998 directing them not to terminate their services, the first petitioner was retained in service.
7. The said interim order after notice to the parties came to be extended until further orders by a subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 12.05.1998. Even before that date, the third and fourth respondents have filed vakalat as per the entries made in the Court records. There is no reason as to why respondents 3 and 4 never filed any application before the Tribunal seeking to vacate the interim order or for a final disposal of the Original Application. Even after the transfer to this Court, till date none of the respondents have filed any counter affidavit. Therefore, it is not open to the third respondent to contend that they were forced to retain the service of the first petitioner only on the strength of the interim order passed by the Tribunal. It is also admitted that the first respondent was initially appointed in the year 1990 and continued in service for eight years and by virtue of the interim order passed by the Tribunal continued for another 11 years in service. If for some reason the first petitioner cannot be retained in service, then he should be extended the benefits of VRS. With reference to opting to go under the outsourcing agency, it is left to the decision of the first petitioner, but with reference to VRS introduced by the Government and adopted by the respondents 3 and 4 by their Board Meeting held on 26.08.2002, it will also apply to the case of the petitioner. When the third respondent has resolved to implement the VRS for 235 employees who are identified as surplus, there is no reason why the first petitioner cannot get the VRS benefits.
8. A preliminary objection was raised by respondents 3 and 4 that the petitioner could not have gone before the Tribunal since no Public Sector Corporation has been notified under
Section 15(3) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 and the petitioners are not Government servants. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant the relief.
9. It is unfortunate that respondents 3 and 4 never moved the Tribunal or High Court for interrogating the proceedings for the last 11 years. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court and now the application is treated as a writ petition as if it has been filed under
Article 226. No doubt this Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the claim made by the petitioners as they are working under wholly owned Government company.
10. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to extend the benefit of VRS as applicable to the other employees who were sent out of service and take into account the service period from the date of his initial entry till the date of his termination for the purpose of calculating the VRS benefits. It is open to the first petitioner to opt to serve under the outsourcing agency if he desires. On that account, the respondents cannot deny the VRS benefit as directed by this Court. The said exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents 3 and 4 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.