Trade Unions Are Essential Like A Strong Opposition Party In A Democracy: Madras HC Rules Against Outsourcing Recruitment Of Drivers, Conductors
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the importance of Trade unions and observed that unions were as important as a strong opposition in a democratic set up. “Unions are always looked upon with contempt as if they exist to hamper smooth functioning. But it is untrue. It is essential to have Union like a strong opposition party in a democratic set up. The conscience of...
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the importance of Trade unions and observed that unions were as important as a strong opposition in a democratic set up.
“Unions are always looked upon with contempt as if they exist to hamper smooth functioning. But it is untrue. It is essential to have Union like a strong opposition party in a democratic set up. The conscience of the ruling party or the Management would always remain alert,” the court observed.
Justice R Hemalatha was hearing a plea by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees’ Federation challenging the decision of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited to engage drivers and conductors through a man power agency to operate regular bus operations.
The federation contended that in 1992, an agreement was entered into between the Union and the Corporation that all direct recruitments would be done by the Management through the Employment Exchange except in cases where the employment would be offered to children of deceased employees who died in harness. Thus, by adopting a new recruitment procedure of outsourcing, the corporation was violating the terms of mutual agreement.
The federation also contended that the floating of tender for recruitment was unacceptable, unethical and illegal. Pointing to the order of the Special Joint Labour Commissioner advising the parties to maintain “status quo”, it was submitted that there was no specific order waiving the requirement of recruitment through the Employment Exchange and such tender was arbitrary and capricious.
On the other hand, the corporation contended that the Joint Commissioner’s order was only advisory and not legally binding. It was also submitted that the decision to outsource drivers and conductors was taken in light of the shortage of drivers and conductors and many of the current drivers and conductors were on prolonged absence and buses were not being operated.
It was also submitted that the tenure of contract was only for a period of one year and there was no other method to tide over the crisis of shortage of drivers and conductors especially during the festive season. The corporation also pointed out that ther agreement was made in 1992 and has been drastic change over the past three decades.
The court noted that the Corporation’s contention that there was an urgent requirement of driver which could be sorted out only by outsourcing was not convincing as the Government had already passed an order suggesting that the staff shortage could be solved by recruiting drivers cum conductors in future.
The court also noted the challenges associated with employing drivers and conductors through private recruitment as the ownership and responsibility was much higher public sector undertakings like transport corporation. The court also noted that when contractual employment was done through man power agencies, the reservation system took a back seat and absence of checks and balances.
The court further observed that when two categories of drivers were employed, it would violate the principle of equality enshrined in the constitution and the divide would further trouble the management and the employees. The court also observed that mass recruitment of drivers by way of open tender system was not a solution to the shortage of drivers.
The court thus advised the authorities to adopt a more transparent and easier process to recruit drivers instead of venturing into the outsourcing mode through man power agencies. The court also allowed the plea and set aside the tender notification calling for employment of drivers and conductor.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.D. Gopal, Government Advocate, Mr. R.Ramanlal, Additional Advocate General IV Assisted by Mr.A.Vinoth Raj Standing Counsel, Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader Standing Counsel for SETC, Ms. P.S. Pavithra, Mr. M. Aswin, Mr. A. Sundaravadhanan, Mr. M. Murali Vinodh, Mr. C. Gauthamaraj
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees’ Federation v Government of Tamil Nadu
Case No: W.P.No.31458 of 2023