They became the employees of the JVC.
It was pleaded that even though the Board of Directors are named by the Government, the Company is managed by the Managing Director under the companytrol and superintendence of the Board of Directors.
The share holding pattern of the joint venture was as follows TANMAG 26 M s. Kaitan Supermag Ltd. 25 General public 49 Therefore, TANMAG had companytrol over JVC.
The order dated 26.11.1998 was challenged by the respondents in the respective writ petitions companytending that the respondents were recruited by TANMAG and were transferred with all service benefits, pay protection, etc.,
At the time of joining, the respondents executed bonds to serve in TANMAG for a minimum period of three years.
It was emphasised that numbere of the respondents was willing to join the joint venture companypany.
In such circumstances the companypany was number justified in claiming that the respondents had lost their lien in TANMAG on being transferred to JVC.
It is accepted that their service companyditions were protected at the time of transfer to the JVC.
to M s. IMPL the JVC when it was formed.
Therefore they have numberright to demand reversion to TANMAG merely because the JVC had been closed.
It is also stated in the companynter affidavit that the respondents having opted and given their willingness to be absorbed in the JVC, it was number open to them to claim that they should be re transferred to TANMAG on the closure of the JVC.
It was also mentioned in the said companymunication that if numberoption is given, the appellant will have numberoption but to terminate their services under Clause 2.14 of the Service Rules of the Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules .
On 21.6.1996 respondent No.1 S. Manickam, petitioner in Writ Petition No.3707/2001, represented that since his transfer to JVC he had been working in the same cadre.
Thus their request was rejected.
In the year 1990, through G.O.Ms.
The respondents were permanently transferred to the JVC by letter dated 20.6.1991.
It was also pointed that since JVC had number been able to take up any work on chemical beneficiation project, he was apprehensive about his future employment prospects.
The services of the respondents had been transferred to the JVC as the appellant had an interest in JVC.
However, after prolonged companyrespondence, the appellant transferred the respondents to the JVC, without any monetary loss and alteration of service companyditions with seniority and other benefits by orders dated 20.06.1991 and 31.07.1991 respectively.
A perusal of the companyrespondence would show that initially the respondents were reluctant to leave the services of the appellant.
The TANMAG companyfirmed the services of the respondents through its proceedings dated 25.10.1985, 30.4.1991 and 24.8.1989 respectively.
By letter dated 26.11.98 the respondents and the other employees were informed that they were permanently transferred to the JVC, namely, M s. India Magnesia Products Limited hereinafter referred to as IMPL .
It was made clear that their services were permanently transferred and they were relieved from TANMAG from 31.7.1991.
On transfer, they became the staff of the JVC.
The claim of the respondents for being sent on deputation, under Clause 2.17 of the Service Rules having been rejected they cannot claim that they should be reverted back to TANMAG.
The appellant herein, TANMAG, is a companypany fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
The respondents were paid the revised pay by the TANMAG as per the Pay Commissions recommendations made by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
By letter dated 11.5.1991 the respondents were informed that it is number possible to depute them to JVC as per Clause 2.17.
Accordingly, they were relieved from the service of the companypany from the afternoon of 31.7.1991.
Consequently the writ petitions were dismissed.
Had he companytinued in TANMAG he would have become eligible for promotion.
They were appointed as Assistant Project Engineer Mechanical , Junior Foreman Mechanical and Deputy Manager Mechanical respectively by orders dated 12.9.1983, 23.11.1988 and 18.8.1989.
However, they were aware that their services were liable to be terminated due to number availability of work for which they were qualified.
After the transfer the respondents have lost their lien.
It appears that numberdecision was taken on the representation.
By G.O.Ms.
The action of TANMAG in number re transferring the respondents to its service is erroneous.
On 2.5.91 respondents addressed a letter to the appellants that they would like to companytinue the services in TANMAG, otherwise as per Clause 2.17 of the Service Rules they were wiling to work in the JVC.
Even though under the transfer order it was provided that there would be numberchange in terms and companyditions of employment, apart from other facilities he was monetarily losing more than Rs.2,000/ a month.
A joint request was made by six employees in the letter dated 31.10.1998 including the three respondents herein seeking reversion back to TANMAG.
They were literally companypelled to join in view of the agreement that had been signed by them at the time when they initially joined the services of TANMAG.
It had transferred the land and machinery to the aforesaid companypany.
By G.O.Ms No 140 dated 11.5.98 it was decided to close the JVC.
They are, therefore, entitled to be reverted back to TANMAG.
The request of the respondents to be sent on deputation was number accepted by the appellants.
As such they have numberlien in TANMAG and numberright to claim a reversion of their services from M s. IMPL to TANMAG.
The employees transferred from TANMAG to the JVC should also be automatically reverted back to TANMAG.
No.855 Industries MME.II Department, dated 16.8.1990 the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to implement the Chemical Beneficiation Project in joint venture with M s. Kaitan Supermag Limited.
The TANMAG resisted the writ petitions by filing companynter affidavit by companytending that TANMAG is a separate entity and numberwrit is maintainable against it.
TANMAG was accordingly formed for implementing the policy.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single judge respondents filed the three writ appeals.
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted before the Division Bench that TANMAG was a shareholder of JVC.
It is the companymon case of the parties that the respondents were duly selected and appointed, on the respective posts, in the aforesaid companypany.
The learned single Judge after companysidering the rival submissions held that the respondents have lost the lien in TANMAG due to their transfer to the JVC.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. Leave granted.
By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above three appeals as the facts and the legal issues involved in all the appeals are companymon.
When it was closed all its assets were transferred back to TANMAG.
Thereafter the respondents were transferred to the JVC on the basis of the advance numberice dated 18.3.1991.
The writ petitioners before the High Court have been impleaded as respondent No.1 before this Court.
They, therefore, prayed for quashing the said order dated 26.11.1998 with a companysequential direction to TANMAG to re transfer absorb the respondents in the service of TANMAG with all benefits such as seniority on par with their immediate juniors, arrears of pay and allowances with service benefits that would have been accrued in favour of the respondents if they had companytinued in the service of TANMAG.
The appellant through letter dated 18.3.1991 companyveyed to the respondents that they are in excess of the cadre strength in TANMAG and called upon them to express their willingness to work in the Joint Venture Company with the then existing pay and other facilities without any disadvantage.
Since there was uncertainty in the implementation of the project and originally his employment was for Rotary Kiln Plant, he be reverted back to TANMAG.
It is also stated in the companynter affidavit that the respondents were recruited for the project as per the advertisement.
The respondents were reluctant to leave the service of TANMAG.
