SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 others Vs. Inspector of Labour, Perambalur and others, reported in 2004(3)L.L.N.598, held as follows:- 42. 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'bel Supreme Court are equally entitled to rely upon the abovesaid decision to support the orders impugned in these writ petitions. 43. 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.

(3.) 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.