SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. INSPECTOR OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 02.03.2016, passed by the 1st respondent in Pa.Mu.No.A/1322/2008 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The facts in brief contended by the writ petitioner are that the respondent/ workmen filed an application before the Inspector of Labour, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act , 1981 with a prayer that they should be conferred permanent status as workmen in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The claims of the workmen were that they have completed 480 days of service and therefore, they must be granted the benefit of the respective services. It is stated that these workmen had completed 480 days of service in 24 Calendar months.

(3.) The writ petitioner/Electricity Board disputed the said contentions of the employees on the ground that these respondent/ 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 petitioner/ Board was not aware of the particulars of these respondent/ workmen, more specifically, the date of joining, nature of work performed and they have completed 480 days within a continuous period of 24 calendar months. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board gave certificates only to those contract labourers, who had worked under the contractors. Thus, the contention of the workmen that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 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 respondent/ workmen have worked 480 days in 24 calendar months as per their claim. Some of the works of the respondent/ 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 respondent/ workmen cannot be entertained at all.