MEIYARASAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash Letter No. 05631/394/Adm.II/JA.1/F.Doc/2016 dated 16.04.2016, and for a consequential direction to direct the 2nd respondent to absorb the petitioner as per the award of the 3rd respondent dated 30.09.2004, made in Na.Ka.No.1250/04 dated 30.09.2004.

(2.) The petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing writ petition in W.P.No.11357 of 2015 for implementing the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour granting permanent status, which was considered and this Court by an order dated 20.04.2015, directed the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 29.12.2014 on merits and in accordance with law also taking into consideration the Memo dated 20.11.2012.

(3.) It is submitted that pursuant to the recommendations of Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission, 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 Selection 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 passed the 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 vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, 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 worked for 480 days and therefore, they are entitled for permanent status.