Friday, Jul 25, 2003
Friday, Jul 25, 2003 |
| Front Page | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
A Bench, comprising Justice M.B. Shah and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, virtually extracted an undertaking from the senior counsel for Tamil Nadu, K.K. Venugopal, that the 1.76 lakh dismissed employees would be reinstated on certain conditions. They are: The reinstatement in service from July 25 would be subject to the employees expressing an unconditional apology as well as giving an undertaking that they would abide by Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, which says that "similar activities" shall be deemed to include the absence from work or neglect of duties without permission. The Government would proceed under the Disciplinary Rules only against those employees who have indulged in violence and who have incited other employees to go on strike. Mr. Venugopal said that for the employees who would be reinstated in service with regard to the period for which they remained absent, an appropriate order would be passed by the Government for the regularisation of their absence. However, this would not be treated as a "break in service." The Bench recorded this undertaking and ordered accordingly. The Bench made it clear that employees would get their salary from tomorrow. The Bench said that further orders and directions would be passed on the batch of five petitions challenging the dismissal and the ordinance amending the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, would be passed on July 31. When arguments began this morning, Mr. Venugopal submitted that the State Government spent Rs. 13,160 crores on salaries and pensionary benefits of the employees with paid holidays for about 169 days a year. The employees thought they were a "class apart" and due to their agitation on five occasions about 312 mandays had been lost in the last two years. "At some stage, the State Government had to make up its mind and say that this far and no more,'' he said. He said the court could not pass an interim order directing the reinstatement of all the dismissed employees as that would be contrary to the earlier orders passed by the apex court. The Government would consider the representations of the employees individually and pass appropriate orders and till such time they could be given subsistence allowance. However, the Bench did not accept this and said that since the employees had realised their "mistake," it was now the Government's turn to show "some grace." In the end, counsel gave alternative suggestions and these were recorded. Earlier, P.P. Rao, another Senior Counsel for Tamil Nadu, argued that since none of the dismissed employees was before the court, trade unions representing them had no locus standi to file the petitions. He said the DMK and other political parties had rushed to the apex court against the High Court judgment to gain political advantage when the employees federation had passed a resolution not to do so, but to approach only the Chief Minister. The Senior Counsel for the employees' unions, T.R. Andhyarujina and P. Chidambaram pointed out that the employees struck work only when they were "pushed to a corner." Mr. Chidambaram submitted that on July 26, 1991, the State Government had itself asked its employees to be absent from duty for a day in the Cauvery issue. The arrests took place on June 30 last prior to the commencement of the strike, culminating in the promulgation of an ordinance and dismissal of employees. When he said the provisions of the ordinance were harsh, the Bench told Mr. Venugopal that "before drafting a legislation you must consult proper counsel.'' It also said that "in a democracy you cannot say that we leave the decision to one person." When Mr. Venugopal insisted that the Government should have the liberty to take action against those who indulged in violence and deal with misconduct, Mr. Chidambaram said "this would result in victimisation.'' The judges said that "if you misuse in that manner the results would be different.'' The Bench observed that the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary power (Article 226) in an extraordinary situation like this and should not have asked the dismissed employees to go to the tribunal as it would be an impossible task for the tribunal — which had only one member — to decide all these cases. The Bench while indicating its mind said this aspect would be dealt with in the final order to be passed on July 31.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
