MADURAI: Criticising government establishments for conducting court cases indefinitely by filing appeals after appeals at State cost even in cases involving service disputes related to a sweeper, the Madras High Court Bench here has imposed a cost of Rs.3,000 on Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) for wasting judicial time.
Dismissing a writ appeal preferred by the management of TNSTC (Madurai), Dindigul Region, the First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S. Nagamuthu directed the appellant to pay the costs imposed on it to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court Bench within two weeks.
Authoring the order, the Chief Justice said: “The appellant Corporation has the luxury of indefinite litigation at different tiers because they can do so at the cost of public money. A case of a sweeper, with no policy involved, is sought to be taken up at the third tier before us... We find such an endless litigation is wastage of judicial time.”
The judges pointed out that S.G. Muniyandi, engaged as a Sweeper in the transport corporation, was abruptly terminated from service in 1997. Hence, he raised an industrial dispute before a Labour Court here. TNSTC opposed the case by contending that he had gained employment through back-door entry and the Branch Manager had no authority to appoint him in service.
However, after 10 years, the Labour Court allowed the case before it on April 2, 2008 and ordered reinstatement of the sweeper in service. TNSTC did not implement the order. Instead, it challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court Bench in 2009 and contended that Mr. Muniyandi was not entitled to the status of an employee of TNSTC.
Justice K.K. Sasidharan dismissed the writ petition on June 6 this year since he found that TNSTC had not taken departmental action against the Branch Manager who had supposedly appointed the sweeper. The judge held that failure to initiate action against the Manager was proof that the appointment was made with the consent of the corporation.
It was this order of the single judge which had been put under challenge before the present writ appeal that got dismissed at the stage of admission itself by the Division Bench led by the Chief Justice.
“The Labour Court has gone into the issue and found it in favour of respondent number 2 (Mr. Muniyandi). In our view that should have been the end of the matter as the order passed is based on appreciation of evidence. Not content with that, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge and it has been dismissed through the impugned order.
“It was not as if the Branch Manager was found at fault. Thus, the learned single judge concluded that obviously such a continuous engagement was with the knowledge and consent and respondent No. 2 having completed the statutory period of work, the Labour Court was justified in directing his reinstatement into service.
“The learned single judge also rightly concluded that it is not the function of this court to re-appreciate the evidence produced before the Labour Court... Considering that there is no merit, at the threshold itself, we dismiss the appeal with costs,” the Bench concluded.
