S.ANBAZHAGAN Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the letter of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.032807/159/G.581/2012-20 dated 24.03.2016, and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Helpers in the respondent organization.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that for the very same relief, the petitioners with their Sangam earlier approached this Court by way of filing writ petition in W.P.No.7846 of 2012. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.02.2015, with a direction to the petitioners to give representation along with all necessary documents to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy. After receipt of the representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, the petitioners sent representation along with entry token to prove their employment. Thereafter, the respondents directed the petitioners to appear before the committee and the petitioners appeared on 04.01.2016, 05.01.2016 and 06.01.2016 before the committee and produced the documents. The members of the committee did not ask anything to the petitioners. When the petitioners waited for the favourable orders, to their shock and surprise, the impugned order dated 24.03.2016 was served containing irrelevant details in respect of the petitioners. Since the petitioners and their Sangam also not pursuing the matter effectively and this Court is also again and again directing the petitioners to approach the respondents to redress their grievances, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition.

(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 Inspectors 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.