- (1.) IN majority of the cases, in the present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who either claim to have been appointed, selected or proposed to be appointed, challenge the validity of G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006 and for the consequential direction against the respondents to permit the petitioners to join duty forthwith either as Conductors or Drivers in the respondent Transport Corporations, pursuance to the orders earlier issued by the respective Transport Corporations. Those are the cases in W.P.Nos.26195, 26196, 26197, 26198, 26199, 26188, 26194, 26189, 26190, 26191, 26192, 26193, 29269, 29270, 39292, 27849, 30332, 34833, 39516, 39517, 39518, 39519, 34700, 25520, 25521, 25522, 25523, 25524, 25525, 25526, 25527, 25528, 24723, 24724, 24725, 41278, 23559, 25167, 25168, 25169, 25387, 25699, 25700, 25007, 25008, 25009, 25447, 25448, 25449, 25450, 25451, 33517, 24285, 30687, 30688, 28015, 28016, 28017, 28018, 28019, 28020, 28021, 28022, 28023 of 2006 and in W.P.Nos.38216, 45043, 45062, 45081, 47719, 42523, 43040, 43041 of 2006.
(2.) SOME petitioners have filed writ petitions challenging cancellation of the selection order issued to them by the respective Transport Corporations. Even though there are no reference in these cases about the impugned G.O.Ms.41, admittedly, the cancellation is pursuant to the said impugned G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006. They are in W.P.Nos.27081, 27082, 41290, 24805, 24806, 24807, 24808, 24809, 24810 of 2006. There are some other cases, wherein the writ petitioners challenge the G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006, only in respect of clause 3 of the said G.O., which stipulate that preference in employment to be given under the said G.O., only in respect of persons appointed from 1997 onwards and terminated later. They are the cases in W.P.Nos.26239, 30326, 39363, 34696, 24975, 40363 of 2006. The remaining, are the cases, where the petitioners have filed writ petitions to implement the G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006 and also in the face of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and provide re-employment and also based on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1294 to 1299 of 1997, apart from Writ Appeal No.2985 of 2000. They are cases in W.P.Nos.45459, 34805, 34806, 34807, 34808, 34809, 34810, 34811, 34816, 34817, 34818, 34819, 34820, 34821, 34822, 34823, 34862, 34863, 34864, 34872, 34873, 34874, 34875, 34876, 34877, 34878, 34879, 34880, 34881, 34887, 34888, 34889, 34890, 34891, 34892, 34893, 34894, 34895, 34896, 34897, 45060, 45076, 45077, 45118, 45119, 45120, 45396, 45397, 45422, 45039, 45040 of 2006.
(3.) THE other cases, namely, in W.P.Nos.35412, 33427, 34825 of 2006 are to implement Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in giving preference in respect of the re-employment of the retrenched employees. Relating to the batch cases, challenging the impugned G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006 Mr.N.R.Chandran learned Senior Counsel has made his submission, apart from Mr.Palani and Mr.Manojpandian and the other learned counsels have adopted the same. In respect of the persons who have challenged the G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006 only in respect of relating to clause 3, Ms.D.Nagasaila has made her submissions, apart from Mr.Gangadharan. In respect of the petitioners, who have supported the implementation of the G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, Ms.Vaigai and Mr.Hariparanthaman have made their submissions as adopted by the other learned counsels. The learned Advocate General has defended the impugned G.O.Ms.No.41 Transport (C1) Department, dated 13.07.2006 on behalf of the respondents.;