AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to
absorb the petitioners as regular employee in the Board, as per order dated 09.05.2011 (A/2466/2010) issued by the 4th respondent, on the
representation of the petitioners.
The petitioners are working as contract labourers in the office of the Junior Engineer, O & M, Santhur, under the control of the respondent no.3
since 1994-95. The petitioners were doing the works of erection of poles and street lights, H.T., L.T., works, Transformer structural works,
dismandling and reerection of poles. The case of the petitioners is that in view of the fact that the petitioners have put in number of years of service,
and that the persons who had less experience and were juniors to the petitioners stood regularised by the Board, but relief of regularisation was
denied to the petitioners.
The petitioners invoked provision 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 for
being absorbed in the service of the Board.
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 reads as under:
Conferment of permanent status to workmen.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force every workman
who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty four calendar months in an industrial establishment
shall be made permanent.
(2) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may
be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out [***] or a cessation of work
which is not due to any fault on the part f the workman.
Explanation I.--[For the purposes of computing the continuous service referred to in sub-sections (1) ad (2), a workman shall be deemed to be in
continuous service during the days on which---];
(i)He has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
(Central Act XX of 1946) or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;
(ii)he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and
(iv)in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve
weeks.
[Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, ''law'' includes any award, agreement, settlement, instrument or contract of service whether
made before or after the commencement of this Act.]
The case of the petitioners is that the application, filed by the petitioners was accepted and the Inspector appointed under the act, passed an
order dated 09.05.2011 directing the grant of permanent status to the petitioners.
The case of the petitioners is that in spite of the order passed in exercise of statutory u/s 3, the respondents have not implemented the order in
spite of the number of representations made by the petitioners in this regard.
The petitioners therefore, pray for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the order passed u/s 3 of
the Act.
On consideration, I find that the writ petition to be misconceived. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981 provides remedies to enforce the orders passed thereunder.
Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 reads as follows:
6.Penalties.-(1) Every employer who contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees and in the case of continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day after the first during which
the offence continues.
[(2) Every employer who contravenes the provisions of any rule made u/s 10 shall be punishable, for a first offence, with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees, and for a subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.]
[(3)] No prosecution for an offence punishable under the section shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority.
The remedy with the petitioners therefore is to work out their remedies u/s 6 of the Act, as the specific statutory remedy is provided to the
petitioners for enforcement of order.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked as prayed for.
The writ petition is ordered to be dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy under the statute.
No costs.