MANAGEMENT OF INDO SHELL MOULD LIMITED PLANT II COIMBATORE Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES COIMBTORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to the first respondent to dispose of its application, dated October 6, 2003, in pending Complaint No. 3710 of 2003. It appears that respondents 2 to 69 were the trainees under the petitioners management. All of them stand terminated by termination order, dated September 18, 2003. Despite that termination order, respondents 2 to 69 have filed an application before the first respondent claiming permanent status under Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981. When proceedings stood thus, the petitioner had filed an application, dated October 6, 2003, in the earlier referred to application by the workmen stating that so long as the termination order stands, there is no question of conferring permanent status on them and therefore that application filed by the management should be taken up for disposal prior to the application filed by the workmen for conferment of permanent status. It is not in dispute and it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, aggrieved over the delay in the disposal of the application filed by the workmen seeking conferment of permanent status, they were before this Court in W.P.Nos. 24303 and 24304 of 2003 and a learned Judge of this Court directed the first respondent to dispose of that application as expeditiously as possible. Caught between the two situations namely, one application filed by the management on October 6, 2003 to be taken up for disposal prior to the application filed by the workmen for conferment of permanent status and the other one namely, the order of this Court directing the first respondent to dispose of the application of the workmen seeking conferment of permanent status as expeditiously as possible, the first respondent is unable to take the petitioners application. In view of the controversy brought about, I am of the opinion that the order of this Court in the writ petitions referred to above directing the first respondent to dispose of the application filed by the workmen for conferment of permanent status, cannot come in the way of the authority to take up the application filed by the management raising the very maintainability of the earlier referred to application by the employees. Consequently the writ petition stands disposed of directing the first respondent to take up the application, dated October 6, 2003, filed by the petitioner questioning the very maintainability of the application filed by the workmen seeking conferment of permanent status forthwith, prior to deciding the other application by the workmen. Consequently Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition No. 37221 of 2003 is closed.