S SIVAKUMAR Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS a result of my conclusion that the issue raised in this writ petition deserves to be referred to a larger Bench, it is sufficient to state only the basic facts.

(2.) ALL the petitioners claiming to have been working under the second respondent Management who have put in a continuous service of more than 480 days within a period of two calender years, had moved the first respondent, being the appropriate authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial establisments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter called the Tamil Nadu Act), for conferment of permanency of their services. The first respondent rejected their petition on the ground that as on the date when they approached the authorities, they had been dismissed from service and hence, there was no relationship of employer and employee and the petition cannot be maintained before the authority.

(3.) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the Management relies on the judgment of K. Govindarajan,j. , in the MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. , chennai Vs. R. BHASKAR AND OTHERS (2003 (2) LLN 638 ). Following the judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra, the learned Judge set aside the order of the appropriate authority directing the Management to confer permanent status in view of the circumstance that the employee had approached the Labour Court as against the order of termination.