S.KUPPUSAMY Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order passed by 4 th respondent, the Inspector of Labour in Permanent Status Case No.129 of 2004, dated 04.10.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the 1st respondent TANGEDCO on permanent basis based on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 17.10.2013 with all consequential and other attendant benefits within a time frame.

(2.) It is stated that the deceased petitioner was appointed as Contract Labourer in the year 1993 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity and Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) previously called as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Mettur Division, under the control of the 3rd respondent. He was constantly employed as Contract Labourer for doing maintenance work including erection andmaintenance of transformers, erection and maintenance of street lights, digging works, erection of polls etc. Having regard to the fact that he was continuously employed as Contract Labourer for meagre payment for several years, he sent representation to the respondents for permanent absorption. In this regard, he has also filed a petition seeking conferment of permanent status and it was ordered by the Inspector of Labour, Namakkal, the 4th respondent. While so, the respondents implemented the orders passed by the Inspector of Labours for conferment of permanent status by selective manner in respect of the claimants. Accordingly, almost all the claimants were absorbed into service on permanent basis, whereas the petitioner was not absorbed into service on permanent basis. Aggrieved against the non-implementation of the orders of the 4th respondent, the deceased petitioner has filed this present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents/ Electricity Board disputed the said contentions of the deceased employee on the ground that the deceased petitioner/ workman did not figure in the list of 18,006 contract labourers prepared by the Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission and hence, he cannot be granted with the benefit of permanent absorption under the Permanent Status Act. The respondents/ Board were not aware of the particulars of the deceased petitioner/ workman, more specifically, the date of joining, nature of work performed and he has worked for three years as 480 days within the continuous period of 24 calendar months. The respective Assistant Engineers gave certificates only to those contract labourers, who had worked under the contractors. Thus, the contention of the petitioners is that the Assistant Engineer concerned 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 deceased petitioner/workman has worked 480 days in 24 calendar months as per their claim. Some of the works of the deceased petitioner/workman 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 petitioners cannot be entertained at all.