ORDER
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner, a Sangam of the Employees of the Madurai Kamarajar University, seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the Resolution of the Syndicate dated November 16, 1999 and May 12, 2000 and to regularise the services of the petitioner within the time to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner contends that the Association consists of 119 members, who are working in various hostels and canteens run by the respondent University in its campus. The Association is a Registered Association. The members are working as Clerks, Attenders, Watchmen, Cooks, Servers etc. in the hostels and canteens run by the respondent University. Most of them have completed nearly 20 to 25 years of continuous service in the respondent University. The members of the Association in their individual capacity have been frequently requesting the University to regularise their services. On October 14, 1986, the Syndicate of the respondent University resolved to regularise those persons who had completed 7 years of service. However, this was not done inspite of the repeated representations. They have also made representations to the Chancellor and the Chief Minister. In February 1999, the Hostel Sub Committee met and recommended regularisation of the existing staff in the appropriate post. The Syndicate also resolved to take necessary action to regularise their services. In the meantime, the members of the petitioner Association were also permitted to subscribe to the Provident Fund and other benefits.
3. The petitioner further contends that in the meeting held in September 1999, the sub Committee recommended immediate action to regularise the services of the members of the petitioner Association. Several other recommendations providing for their benefits were also made by Sub Committee. The petitioner further contends that the Syndicate had approved all the resolutions of the Hostel Sub Committee. The Association was under the bona fide belief that the services of the members would be regularised. Thereafter also, several’ representations were made and as there was no response, the members of the petitioner Association have approached this Court.
4. In the counter filed by the University, it is stated that though it is true that the members of the Association are working in several categories, it was not correct to state that all of hem have completed 20 to 25 years of service. Only about 40 out of 119 persons, would have completed 20 years of service. It is only the Hostel Sub Committee which had recommended that Clerks and those who have completed more than 7 years of service in the cadre of Gardener and Watchman shall be taken by the University. The Syndicate did not make or accept any such recommendation. The petitioner Association has been making representations to the University and to the other authorities. The Syndicate at its meeting held on May 16, 1987 approved the Office Note regarding the revision of pay scales to the 17 hostel employees on par with the University and the same has been implemented. In the subsequent meeting held on February 16, 1989, he claims of the hostel employees were examined and it was resolved to consider later heir inclusion in the service of the University according to the seniority whenever vacancy irises. The members of the Association were also allowed to subscribe to the Provident Fund from 1993. It is true that the Hostel Sub Committee made several recommendations in their meetings held on September 27, 1999 and November 29, 1999. The Syndicate in its meeting held on November 16, 1999 approved ;he minutes of the meetings of the Hostel Sub Committee held on August 12, 1999, September 8, 1999 and September 27, 1999 except one item. The Hostel Sub Committee again met on November 29, 1999 and reiterated its earlier recommendations. The Recommendation of the Hostel Sub Committee regarding payment of Medical Allowance, Surrender Salary, L.T.C to the hostel employees who have put in more than 10 years of service, have been accepted and not the regularisation of the services of the petitioner Association.
5. The respondent further submits that there is no compulsion for the students to stay in the hostel and that many of the students are also staying outside. The hostel is run by the students on dividing the expenditure and the salary is paid to the hostel employees only from the money received from the students staying in the hostel. Separate accounts were maintained by the Warden for the hostel account. There is also no paid Warden for the hostel.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inspite of the fact that the members of the Association are performing regular duties throughout the year and the nature of their job being perennial, it was unjust on the part of the respondent University to keep them on consolidated salary without any regularisation. It was only in consideration of the pathetic and improper situation in which the members of the petitioner Association were placed, repeated resolutions have been passed by the Hostel Sub Committee in the course of I the past few years. Most of the resolutions also I have been endorsed by the Syndicate. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. in support of his contention that the employees of cafeteria within the University Campus who have been regularly employed, are employees of the University and the University was directed to regularise their services.
7. Mr. Jyothimani, learned counsel for the respondent contends that it was not correct to state that all the members of the Association have completed 20 years of service. Reliance placed on the recommendations of the Hostel Sub Committee is not sustainable, considering that the supreme governing body of the University has to approve and take a decision on the issue. It is further contended that as and when any vacancy arises in the workforce of the University, the petitioners are regularised depending on the nature of the work and the qualifications and the availability of the vacancy. In the absence of any sanctioned post, there can be no mandamus directing the University to regularise the services of the members of the petitioner Association.
8. I have considered the submissions of both sides.
9. It is not disputed that more than 40 members have been in the service for more than 20 years. The remaining members have also rendered continuous service for different spells. It is needless to mention that such temporary employment for a prolonged period is against a healthy labour policy and would amount to unfair labour practice. All the more so, in the case of public institutions like the University, it has been repeatedly held that they should function as model employers. Inspite of the fact, Supreme Court and the various High Courts have been repeatedly emphasising that public institutions should refrain from such unfair labour practice, it is seen that the respondent, which is an University, continues to employ several employees on temporary and ad hoc basis without any regularisation for several years. The state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue and the University has a legal duty to enforce the labour laws in proper manner. On the issue relating to Canteen employees, Supreme Court has considered the working conditions of employees of the cafeteria attached to G. B. Pant University in the judgment cited above. On a perusal of the provisions of the University Act, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it was the duty and legal obligation of the University to ‘maintain residential accommodation, to promote the health and welfare of the students, and to make housing and messing arrangements. Therefore, the existence of cafeteria together with its several employees was held to be part of accommodation arrangements by the University. The University was ultimately directed to regularise the services of the said employees.
10. The situation prevailing in the respondent University is not different from the facts dealt with by the Supreme Court in the above case. A perusal of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965 discloses that in terms of Section 18, every student of the University other than the non-collegiate students shall be required to reside in a hostel or under such other conditions as may be prescribed.
11. Chapter XXX deals with the residence of the students and recognition of hostels. “Hostel” is defined as a unit of residence for students by the University maintained or recognised by the University in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Lodgings are also described as approved Lodgings. Under Clause 6, the appointment of the supervisory staff of every hostel has to be made by the Managing body or by any authority to whom such body may have delegated the power and all such appointments shall be reported to the Syndicate. Under Clause 8, it is stated that the Syndicate shall arrange for the periodical inspection of all the hostels and approved lodgings.
12. Therefore, it is idle for the University to contend that it was not obligatory for the students to stay in the hostel, and such a stand cannot be appreciated in view of the statutory obligation as enjoined by the Act to run the, hostel in an appropriate manner.
13. Realising the situation, in which the petitioners were placed, as stated earlier, the Hostel Sub Committee has been frequently passing several resolutions requesting Syndicate to regularise their services. In the meeting held on August 12, and September 8 and 27, 1999, the Hostel Committee had requested the Syndicate to prepare a seniority list of the hostel employees and to consider the qualified persons for appointment along with other persons. A further request was made by the Syndicate to examine as to what best can be done to the hostel employees in the matter of superannuation and their death in harness. Several other recommendations were also made in favour of the said employees to join the LIC, Group Insurance Scheme, for uniform revised scale of pay, for revision of D.A., H.R.A. Arrears etc. It is also admitted that’ most of such recommendations were also endorsed by the Syndicate. It is therefore incorrect to contend that the Syndicate has nothing to do with the recommendations of the Committee which is a delegated body.
14. On November 22, 1999, the Committee on Discipline, Welfare of students, passed several resolutions requesting the Syndicate to ratify the grant of Dearness Allowance to the hostel employees and other benefits, such as Medical Allowance, surrender of leave, L.T.C. etc. The employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service in the hostels, are also recommended that they should be paid equal pay for equal work. The Committee also took a serious view of the non-implementation of the order of the Vice- Chancellor and the Hostel Committee regarding the Special Ad hoc Payment as gratis which should have been disbursed to the employees of the hostel.
15. The above facts and circumstances disclose the pitiable situation in which the members of the petitioner Association are placed in the University for several years without any continuity of service or even the equal emoluments which are paid to the other employees of the University. The usual contention as raised in similar cases, namely, that there are no sanctioned posts or vacancies, is raised in this case also. Such a contention is liable to be rejected. When the institution/ employer finds it necessary to employ number of workmen, either on regular or temporary basis to meet the requirements of the day-to-day functions, there is no justification for the employer to artificially limit the number of posts, and then continue to employ hundreds of individuals in ad hoc capacity. The administration has to properly assess the required number of employees and sanction such number of posts as are found necessary. Without doing so, to deliberately keep the number of sanctioned posts at a lesser level in an artificial manner and plead that there are no sanctioned posts cannot at all be appreciated. The reason for such state of affairs is obvious namely, to employ persons on low wages and also to hire and fire them at the will and pleasure of the authorities.
16. This is not expected of public institutions like the University. There is no justification in limiting the number of permanent posts and to plead that there are no sanctioned vacancies.
17. There is absolutely no justification to ignore the repeated and frequent recommendations of the two Committees, viz., Hostel Sub Committee and the Committee on Discipline and Welfare of Students. Though their recommendations may not be binding on the Syndicate, it must be remembered that such Committees are constituted and delegated with the authority to assess and advice the University on such matters. The University cannot close its eyes to the realities and contend that the recommendations are not binding. Even under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, employees who have put in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of two years are entitled for permanency. The nature of work is not seasonal nor in relation to a temporary project, but permanent and perennial and the University has a legal duty to run and maintain the hostels as dealt with earlier.
18. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the resolution/recommendation of the Committee to regularise the services of employees who have put in more than seven years of service is reasonable even ignoring the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act as aforesaid. The respondent is, therefore, directed to regularise the services of the employees of all the Hostels and Canteens of the University, who have put in more than 7 years of continuous and regular service with effect from January 1, 2004. Such orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. The writ petition is ordered subject to the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. No. 33509 of 2002 is closed.