R.JAGATHEESWARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petitions is to direct the respondents herein to issue appointment orders to the petitioners with all benefits as per the orders of the Honourable Division Bench dated 24.10.2008 in a batch of Writ Petitions including W.P.No.13821 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioners state that they were engaged by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) in different departments for various works. The petitioners claim that they had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of service. Since the petitioners and other similarly placed persons were not absorbed in services, they preferred a complaint to the Inspector of Labour, Namakkal under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The Inspector of Labour by an order dated 04.10.2004, held that the petitioners are entitled for the relief of permanent status and directed the TNEB to regularise the petitioners from the date when they had completed 480 days of continuous days in a period of twenty four calender months.

(3.) The petitioners further state that in the mean time Justice Khalid Commission also 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. However, since the order of the Inspector of Labour was not implemented by the TNEB, they preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.13821 of 2005 to implement the order dated 04.10.2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, a Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.08.2007, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"?) was entered into between the TNEB and the Trade Unions for absorption of contract labourers. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide common order dated 24.10.2008, held that the employees who have succeeded before the Inspector of Labour were to be considered as per the settlement. Even though many other employees were issued appointment orders, the petitioners herein were not considered under the settlement in spite of repeated requests. Hence, the present writ petitions.