R.VINODKUMAR Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY GENERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 1 st Respondent in Lr.No.004776/020/G.44/G.441/2013-9 dated 10.12.2014 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner on permanent basis in the Respondent The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO) with regular time scale of pay.

(2.) The petitioner earlier approached this Court for implementing the orders passed by the respondents, granting permanent status, which was considered by this Court and an order was passed that the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered with reference to orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench as well as 12(3) Settlement dated 10.08.2007 and the proceedings of the Electricity Board in B.P.No.9, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2008 granting permanent absorption for contract labourers.

(3.) Pursuant to the recommendations of Hon'ble Justice Khalid Committee, a list of eligible persons, who were engaged as Casual Labourers on daily wage basis by the private contractors, who were engaged by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for execution of the Boards work 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 Select Committee was 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 Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 with reference to the appointment in public services were not considered by the respondents / competent authority. Contrarily, a mechanical approach was adopted by the authorities competent that the casual labourers worked for 480 days and therefore, they are entitled for permanent status.