The Superintending Engineer vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

R. Sudhakar, J.—The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has filed these batch of writ petitions challenging the order of the Labour Inspector in

individual claim made by the contract labourers engaged by the Board for doing jobs viz., digging pits, laying cables and erection of poles etc.

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the contract labourers worked for more than 480 days in two calendar years

and approached the Labour Inspector for conferment of permanency status in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments

(Conferment of Permanent Status)Act,1981, as their claim was not considered. Such claim was adjudicated and held in favour of the individual

labourers by the order of the Labour Inspector and the same is under challenge before this Court. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out by the

learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that the similar claim made by the contract workers were adjudicated in their favour by the Labour

Inspector, which was challenged before this Court and this Court in Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle, Vellore and

Ors. v. Inspector of Labour, Perambalur and Ors. reported in 2004 (3) L.L.N.598, held as follows:

In the light of my abovesaid conclusion, I do not find any scope to refer to the various other decisions relied upon on behalf of the

Petitioner/Board except the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer Tuticorin Thermal Power Station case (2002 (1) L.L.N.

651) (vide supra), where in respect of similarly placed workmen whose claims came to be accepted and the conferment of permanent status

granted by the Inspector of Labour, Tuticorin was upheld by this Court, which was also confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it

will have to be held that the course adopted by the concerned workmen who were similarly placed like that of the workmen covered in the above

referred to judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are equally entitled to rely upon the abovesaid decision to support the orders impugned in

these writ petitions.

Be that as it may, it will have to be held that the conferment of permanent status which has been directed to be accorded by the orders

impugned in the writ petitions can only be taken to mean that the status of the concerned workmen which were hitherto a nebulous one would

become a permanent one with the Petitioner/Board. The question whether such a conferment of permanent status would entitle the concerned

workmen to claim regularisation in a particular category in the services of the Petitioner/Board requires further consideration by the Board. I am of

the view that while the conferment of permanent status would ensure to the concerned workmen their permanent employment with the

Petitioner/Board, in what category or post in which they are to be regularised is a matter which will have to be worked out by the Petitioner/Board

by passing appropriate orders. The conferment of permanent status in the services of the Board in the appropriate position befitting the nature of

employment hitherto performed by the concerned workmen as ordered by the Inspector of Labour should be appropriately made by the Board.

Inasmuch as the Inspector of Labour having crystallised the position that the concerned workmen have acquired the status of permanency in the

employment of the Petitioner/Board, the consequential details of such permanent status will have to be specified by the Petitioner/Board by issuing

appropriate proceedings. In other words, the Petitioner/Board will have to pass appropriate orders relating to the concerned workmen be in any

existing category of employment or by virtue of the nature of jobs hitherto performed by them, they are to be fitted in any other post with the

corresponding scale of wages/scales/etc., and the other benefits available to them to be prescribed by the Petitioner Board. In the event of such

proceedings issued by the Petitioner/Board creating any controversy or dispute by the concerned workmen therefor the said issue may have to be

appropriately thrashed out in the manner known to law. Having regard to the positive directions issued by the Inspector of Labour, it is incumbent

on the part of the Petitioner/Board to pass appropriate proceedings conferring permanent status to the concerned workmen in accordance with

law.

The abovesaid order was challenged by way of writ appeal in W.A. No. 1302 of 2003, along with the writ appeal, the writ petitions filed by the

technically qualified persons were also considered in a batch of writ petition No. 45517 of 2002 on 24.10.2008. At the time of disposal of the writ

appeal, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the single Judge of this Court thereby the order of Labour Inspector came to be

confirmed. In the meantime, the Board entered into the settlement u/s 18(1) on 10.08.2007 in respect of 6000 contract labours which number

increased thereafter. The Bench on considering the order of the single Judge, was of the view that the contract labourers are entitled to seek benefit

under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(Conferment of Permanent Status) Act,1981. While confirming the order of the

learned single Judge, the Division Bench observed that the direction containing in paragraph 43 of the single Judge''s order will apply subject to the

condition mentioned in paragraph 23 and 24 of the order in writ appeal. The relevant paragraph of the writ appeal reads as follows:

If this was only a case of adjudication of whether the status of workmen was as directly employed by the Electricity Board or they were

employed only as contract labourers, we would have directed that the objection should be considered and an adjudication made in the industrial

dispute raised u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The argument advanced by Shri. Hariparanthaman is that the fact of more than 21,000

workmen was being adjudicated before the labour Court in I.D. No. 106 of 2003 and that would be the appropriate forum of adjudication. He

urged that the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27714 of 2007 and connected writ petition ought to have been directed only to challenge the agreement

before the Industrial Tribunal and not by means of writ petition. We have already seen that remedy by writ petition itself is not barred and if the

board as an employer has conceded to their status as workmen to whom the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(Conferment of

Permanent Status Act), could be applicable, there is no warrant for directing the parties to seek adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. We

cannot hold that the agreement itself is tainted with any fraud or mala fides.

Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the settlement entered into by the Board with workmen and union is valid and enforceable.

We, however, qualify the same that it shall be subordinated only to the extend that the claims of ITI trained workmen that the regulation demands

for the post of ''helpers'' are not discarded.

The writ petition challenging Section 18(1) settlement dated 10.08.2007 was also dismissed.

In fine, the Division Bench was passed the following order.

The claims of persons before Labour Inspectors which have been allowed and who have come before this Court seeking for issue a mandamus for

enforcement will now be considered under the 18(1) settlement. The Writ petitions filed by the Electricity Board challenging the orders of the

Labour Inspectors will now be dismissed as infurtuous having regard to the 18(1) settlement. The appeals filed by the Board against the decision of

the learned single will also stand dismissed. The claims of the workmen in W.P. No. 1033 of 2006 and the connected batch will not stand affected

by the decisions of this Court and the Labour Court will decide on their claims in I.D. No. 106 of 2003 in the light of what we have observed,

insofar as they are relevant and independently of the same on factual issues whether they have been directly employed by the Electricity Board or

not. The Writ petitions and Writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Since, the Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court and upheld the order of the Labour

Inspector granting the relief of permanency to the individual contract labourers, the present batch of writ petitions on the same plea have to fail and

accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. The Respondent employees/contract labourers will be entitled to all the benefits that will flow from the

order of the learned single Judge of this Court as confirmed by the Division Bench as above. The Board is directed to implement the same within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, all connected M.Ps. are closed.