Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M.Pechimuthu on 28 April, 2021
W.A.No.897 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.897 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.5371 of 2021
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
12, Thambusamy Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
2.Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
No.7, Conron Smith Road,
Gopalapuram, Chennai - 86. .. Appellants
Vs
1.M.Pechimuthu
State General Secretary
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Employees' Union on Behalf of
M.Perumal, 12, Thambusamy Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
2.Inspector of Labour,
II Circle, No.33
Venkat Narayana Road,
2nd Floor, Nandanam,
Chennai - 35. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.357 of 2012.
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.897 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.C.Selvaraj
For Respondents : Mr.V.Prakash, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram
for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 11.06.2019
passed in W.P.No.357 of 2012.
2.The first respondent, on behalf of the worker by name
Perumal (Sweeper), approached the statutory authority under the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, on the premise that he was working
from 2004 onwards on a consolidated pay and completed 480 days of
uninterrupted service as on 10.12.2005.
3.The Inspector of Labour, upon hearing the parties, allowed the
application filed by the first respondent. Reliance has been made on
the communication sent to the higher authority by the management
dated 10.07.2007, which indicates the nature of work done and the
payment received on a consolidated basis. The Inspector of Labour
has made reliance upon another communication sent by the first
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.897 of 2021
appellant to the Government dated 12.01.2007, by which
recommendation has been made for making the workman as
permanent.
4.Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant placed reliance
upon the communication dated 06.08.1999. Considering the above
and after taking note of the same, the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition holding as under:
"8. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the worker Perumal was not
engaged even on temporary basis in the petitioners'
godown and he was engaged only for fumigation work
of spraying and air charging as per the capacity of
godown through the permanent loadmen working in
the said godown. There is no sanctioned post of
Sweeper in the godown. The worker Perumal could not
have worked for 480 days continuously from
18.08.2004 to 10.12.2005. The 1st respondent has
filed a letter dated 06.08.1999, wherein the 1st
petitioner has fixed wages of Sweeper based on the
capacity of the godown. In view of the same, the
contentions of the petitioners that the work of the
Sweeper is not perennial in nature and they are
engaged only at the time of receipt of issue of stocks
and there is no sanctioned post of Sweeper, are not
acceptable. The 1st respondent in his application has
stated the nature of work done by the worker
Perumal. The petitioners have not examined the
godown manager to disprove the said contention of
the 1st respondent and they have not produced any
material to show as to how they calculated the number
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.897 of 2021
of days worked by the worker and arriving at the
amounts payable by them, when no Attendance
Register is maintained for the worker Perumal. The
godown Manager of the petitioners has written a letter
dated 10.07.2007 to the 2nd petitioner stating that
the worker has worked continuously for 480 days. The
petitioners have not disputed the genuineness of the
said letter. Further, the 1st petitioner by the letter
dated 12.01.2007 bearing Reference
Na.Ka.No.ALD4/136307/2005 has written to the
Government for regularisation of service of the worker
Perumal. Considering the above materials, I hold that
there is no error in the order of the 2nd respondent
ordering permanency of the worker Perumal
warranting interference by this Court."
5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the
aforesaid submission before us.
6.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that the Inspector of Labour considered the relevant
materials placed before him and therefore, no interference is
required.
7.We do not find any merit in this appeal. On perusal of the
order of the Inspector of Labour, we find that all the materials
relevant were taken into consideration. The letter dated 06.08.1999,
it appears, has not been placed before the Inspector of Labour.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.897 of 2021
However, the same was considered correctly by the learned Single
Judge. The fact remains that the workman was appointed on a
consolidated basis and working from 2004 onwards. A factual finding
has been given with respect to the continuous employment of 480
days to make him eligible for permanent employment.
8.In such view of the matter, we do not find any procedural
violation especially in the light of the factual adjudication made
warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
28.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi
To
The Inspector of Labour,
II Circle, No.33
Venkat Narayana Road,
2nd Floor, Nandanam, Chennai - 35.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.897 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.897 of 2021
28.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
