M. KRISHNAPPA Vs. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/O & M, TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has focused the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 25.01.2012 and to regularise his service as per the list submitted by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent in pursuance of the Memo No. 047/007443/SED/Adm.2/A.2/F.C.L./2008 dated 25.03.2008 on the file of the Second Respondent and Memo No. 128688/G.582/2009 -1 dated 12.05.2010 on the file of the First Respondent. According to the Petitioner, he is working as a Contract Labourer on and from 01.01.2001 continuously in the Respondents Corporation under the control of the Assistant Engineer (O & M), Town, Marandahalli, without any blemish. The Second Respondent issued a Memo in reference No. 047/007443/SED/Adm.2/A.2/F.C.L./2008 dated 25.03.2008 directing all the Executive Engineers of the Circle to submit the details of left out Contract Labourers, who were not covered under Section 12(3) settlement of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and engaged continuously and further the details of the Contract Labourers who are not engaged etc., Pursuant to the Memo dated 25.03.2008 issued by the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent had instructed all the Assistant Executive Engineers to furnish the details in the enclosed statement on or before 27.05.2010 without fail.

(2.) THE specific case of the Petitioner is that he is working as a Contract Labourer on and from 01.01.2001 continuously and his name was included by the Assistant Engineer (O & M), SIPCOT, Hosur, on 29.05.2010 showing that he was a left out Contract Labourer and not covered under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and engaged continuously along with others. The report was submitted to the Third Respondent and the same was forwarded to the Second Respondent. It appears that no regularisation orders were issued pursuant to the Memo issued by the Second Respondent dated 25.03.2008. He along with two others made a representation to the Respondents 1 & 2 on 25.01.2012 making a request to regularise his service. However, no order is passed by the Respondents till date.

(3.) IN this connection, it is needless for this Court to make a significant mention that a workman, who had rendered a continuous service of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, should be conferred with the permanent status in an establishment. It is to be pointed out that every employer is supposed to maintain in Tamil language or in English language a Register of workmen in Form -1 prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and also prepare and exhibit the list of workmen with sufficient details for perusal by the workmen. It may not be lost sight of that, such list ought to be sent to the Inspector within a fortnight from the close of each half -year with a declaration that it has been exhibited in the establishment for perusal by the workmen. The employer should send an half -yearly return in Form -2 at the end of each half -year.