R.PALANISAMY Vs. INSPECTOR OF LABOUR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the 2nd respondent to comply with the order passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Inspector of Labour dated 19.04.2010 in its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.E./288/10 under The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act.

(2.) The petitioners state that the 1st respondent / Inspector of Labour, on 19.04.2010, directed the 4th respondent Electricity Board to regularize the services of the petitioners as Permanent employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioners state that they sent representations on various dates during the year 2011 and inspite of those representations, the respondents 2 to 4 have not initiated any action to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent / Inspector of labour. The petitioners claim that they had already completed 480 days of work. Thus, they are entitled to be conferred with the Permanent Status under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. Thus, the writ petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition. Though the present writ petition is filed, seeking implementation of the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour, granting Permanent absorption in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, this Court has to consider the issues with reference to the recommendations of Justice Khalid Commission and subsequent orders and Board proceedings passed in this regard for the absorption of the Contract Labourers, who were engaged by the Private Contractors for permanent absorption in the services of the Board.

(3.) The Respondents /Electricity Board disputed the said contentions of the employees on the ground that these petitioners/workmen did not figure in the list of 18,006 contract labourers prepared by the Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission and hence they cannot be granted with the benefit of permanent absorption under the Permanent Status Act. The respondents/Board was not aware of the particulars of these petitioners/workmen, more specifically, the date of joining, nature of work performed and they have worked for three years as 480 days within the continuous period of 24 calendar months. The respective Assistant Engineers gave certificates only to those contract labourers, who had worked under the contractors. Thus, the contention of the workmen is that the Assistant Engineer concerned had extracted work from the contract labourer, is false and incorrect. It is contended that there is no record in possession of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to show that the petitioners/workmen have worked 480 days in 24 calendar months as per their claim. Some of the works of the petitioners/workmen were performed through award of tenders to the contractors and the amounts are paid to the respective contractors. The wages as applicable were not paid directly to the workers to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thus, the claim of the petitioners/workmen cannot be entertained at all.