C. RAVI Vs. THE DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND THE CHENNIMALAI WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Mr. C. Ravi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent, the Special Officer of Chennimalai Weavers Co -operative Society Limited, Chennimalai, Erode District to implement the order passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Erode in No. E/6492/2001 dated 1.7.2002, with an alternative prayer to direct the first respondent to initiate penal action under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act against the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, by drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph -9 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that the first respondent had already initiated prosecution against the Manager of the second respondent -Society in C.C. No. 11 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode for failure to implement the order passed by the first respondent dated 1.7.2002 and the same is pending, therefore, the second part of the prayer has become infructuous. The said statement is recorded. However, while pressing his first part of the prayer in the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner, having joined the Mill of the second respondent on 16.12.91, was continuously engaged in the process of dyeing, bleaching and similar type of work entrusted by the second respondent. While so, the Inspector of Factories, Erode, conducted an inspection on 16.12.93 in the second respondent's premises. During the course of inspection, a complaint was given by the employees of the said Mill. Pursuant to the said inspection, the Inspector of Factories also, in his communication dated 31.12.93, passed an order taking note of the fact that the petitioner and 18 other workmen, having put in long number of years of service, have not been regularised even after completion of 480 days of service on the date of inspection. Subsequently, on 22.4.94, the Inspector of Factories, Erode also conducted another inspection and passed an order, and based on the inspection, the first respondent also passed an order on 1.7.2002 in No. E/6492/2001 directing conferment of permanent status to the workmen who had worked for more than 480 days. The direction given by the first respondent has not been fully complied with by the second respondent. As the second respondent did not come forward to confer permanent status to the petitioner and other persons as per the direction given by the first respondent, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent bringing to his notice that the non compliance of his direction by the second respondent is an offence under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, therefore, requested to issue a suitable direction to the second respondent for conferring permanent status to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that in addition to the powers conferred upon the first respondent, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Erode under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, he is also empowered to prosecute the second respondent under sub -rule (v) of Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, in order to enforce the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, based on the representation given by the petitioner under sub -rule (4) of Rule 6, though the first respondent initiated prosecution against the second respondent, however, the petitioner has not been given any benefit flowing out of the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel pleaded before this Court to issue a direction or order to the second respondent for implementing the order passed by the first respondent dated 1.7.2002 in No. E/6492/2001. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in V. Radhakrishnan and others v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and others reported in : 2007 (3) CTC 672 to contend that even when the casual daily labourers employed in State Forest college for two decades were given the benefit of regularisation, the above ratio will squarely apply to the case of the petitioner. On the above basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submitted that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, for the reason that the petitioner was not appointed through employment exchange. Therefore, when the petitioner's appointment was irregular, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co -operative Societies and others, : AIR 2004 SC 4504, the prayer sought for by the petitioner for implementing the order passed by the first respondent is unworkable, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Repeating his contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader stated that when the petitioner was not appointed through the employment exchange and the same being irregular, these facts were completely suppressed by the petitioner before the order was passed by the first respondent directing the second respondent to confer permanent status to the petitioner and other workmen. But this contention cannot be advanced before this Court for the stand taken by the second respondent in his own counter affidavit. Paragraph -9 of the counter affidavit shows that the first respondent had already initiated prosecution against the Manager of the second respondent in C.C. No. 11 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode for the failure to implement his order in No. E/6492/2001 dated 1.7.2002 and the same is also pending. Once the first respondent had already initiated prosecution against the management of the second respondent in C.C. No. 11 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode for the failure to implement his order dated 1.7.2002, the second respondent cannot take a different stand that the order passed by the first respondent was irrelevant. Moreover, the petitioner, having joined the services of the second respondent on 16.12.91 and being engaged in the process of dyeing, bleaching and other works in the second respondent Mill, for the reason that he has been continuously working, as per the inspection report made by the Inspector of Factories, which has been approved by the first respondent, till now having put in 22 years of long service, is entitled to the conferment of permanent status. Therefore, it is too late for the second respondent to argue against the prayer made by the petitioner, when the first respondent had already passed an order on 1.7.2002 directing the second respondent to confer the permanent status to all those workmen who had worked for more than 480 days in the second respondent Mill. Till date, admittedly, the said order has not been challenged. Having allowed the said order to become final, this Court has no other option except to direct the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent dated 1.7.2002 by giving all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.