K.SASIKUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed seeking permanent absorption in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

(2.) The petitioners state that they were working as Contract Labourers in the respondent Electricity Board for several years. The petitioners claim that they had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of service. The petitioners state that Justice Khalid Commission submitted a report recommending permanent absorption in respect of contract labourers, who served 480 days in 24 months. Pursuant to the report, the Committee short listed the eligible persons and accordingly, the benefit of permanent absorption was granted. The petitioners, based on the services rendered by them as Contract Labourers, filed a petition before the Inspector of Labour under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, and the Inspector of Labour passed an order on 04.06.1999, granting the benefit of permanent status in favour of the writ petitioner. Since, the order of the Inspector of Labour has not been implemented by the 1st respondent Board, the petitioners made representations to the 3rd respondent Board to grant permanent status on par with other similarly placed persons. However, no order was passed. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition for a direction to implement the orders of the Inspector of Labour.

(3.) Pursuant to the recommendations of Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission, the eligible persons who were engaged as Casual Labourers on daily wage basis by the private contractors and who were engaged by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for execution of the work on behalf of the Board, were identified and pursuant to the recommendations of Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission, the benefit of permanent absorption was granted as one time measure. The casual Labourers included in the list by the Selection Committee were conferred with the benefit of permanent absorption. However, certain other casual labourers, who were not granted the benefit of permanent absorption, approached the Inspector of Labour under the Confirmation of Permanent Status Act and this Court found that the Inspector of Labour has passed an award in a mechanical manner without adjudicating the legal grounds as well as the implications of such confirmation of permanent status, merely by stating that they have completed 480 days of service. The implications of constitutional mandates as well as the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Umadevi Case"?), with reference to the appointment in public services were not considered by the Inspector of Labour. Contrarily, a mechanical approach was adopted by the Inspector of labour that the casual labourers were worked for 480 days and therefore, they are entitled for permanent status.