Madras High Court
B.Nagarajan vs M/S. Valuthur Gas Turbine Power ... on 15 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4966 of 2021
1.B.Nagarajan
2.R.Mangalanathan
3.S.Sathiyendran
4.J.Jaiganesh Kumar
5.S.Karthikeyan ... Appellants
Vs.
1.M/s. Valuthur Gas Turbine Power Station,
Represented by its Superintending Engineer,
Mr.R.Kamaraj,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Perungulam Post,
Valantharavai,
Ramanathapuram – 623 536.
2.The Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health
Competent Authority,
Under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
Office of the Factories,
Thallakulam, Madurai.
3.R.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2014 dated
02.07.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Anand Gopalan
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for
the first respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants 2 to 7 in
W.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2014 dated 02.07.2019. The first respondent
is a wholly owned power station of the Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO). The order which was
impugned in the writ petition was passed by the second
respondent, who is the competent authority under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 ['the Act', for brevity].
By the said order dated 02.12.2013, the second respondent allowed
the applications filed by the appellants and held that all the
appellants are entitled to permanency. After rendering such a
finding, the second respondent proceeded to determine the
effective date from which the appellants are entitled to
permanency. It was noted by the second respondent that all the
appellants had worked for more than 480 days in a continuous
period of 24 calender months and after noting the details, the
authority directed conferment of permanent status of all the
appellants with effect from the date of issue of his order ie.,
02.12.2013.
3.The first respondent challenged the said order by filing a
writ petition, contending that the authority failed to take note of
the preliminary counter statement, wherein they sought for a
direction to produce proof to claim that the appellants were under
a direct employment under the first respondent organisation. As
long as the said employer employee relationship is not established,
the question of claiming permanency would not arise. Certain
factual issues were also raised in the writ petition. Further, it was
contended that if the appellants have any grievance about their
method of engagement through their contractors, the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
respondent ought to have directed them to raise a dispute for
adjudication by impleading the proper and necessary persons.
4.In the writ petition, the appellants did not file counter
affidavit, but, it appears that they reiterated the conclusion arrived
at by the second respondent in the order impugned in the writ
petition dated 02.12.2013, contending that the same was passed
after undertaking examination of the facts. The learned Writ Court
opined that if permanency is to be granted, it will affect the
administration of the TANGEDCO. The learned Writ Court had
referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.
1302 of 2003, etc., batch dated 24.10.2008, which appears to be a
factually different case pertaining to the claim of certain workmen
based on the report of the Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission.
Therefore, in our view, the said decision would have no application
to the facts and circumstances of the case.
5.The observations contained in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 are
matters pertaining as to how public employment should be in a
transparent manner and ensure equal opportunity to all. Further,
there is also an observation to the effect that the 12 (3) settlement
entered into between the Board and the Union are binding between
the parties and they are to follow the same for the purpose of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
granting the benefit of permanent status to the contract labourers
who have served for more than 480 days. We find, this observation
also does not have any specific reference to the case of the
appellants which was considered and decided in their favour by the
second respondent.
6.Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition and we
find that the Court has neither validated the order passed by the
second respondent nor interfered with the order passed by the
second respondent. However, the appellants / writ petitioners were
granted liberty to submit fresh representations, setting out the
facts in detail and the competent authority was directed to consider
that representation. In our considered view, the Writ Petition filed
by the respondent / TANGEDCO was challenging the correctness of
the order passed by the second respondent who was the competent
authority under the Act, who has adjudicated the claim of the
appellants and granted permanency. Therefore, it would be
necessary to decide as to whether the said order suffers from any
error or illegality warranting interference. In our considered view,
the writ petition needs to be re-heard and decided afresh. That
apart, the appellants are also required to file counter affidavit in
the matter and place any documents for consideration before the
second respondent authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
7.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the
order dated 02.07.2019 and the writ petition is restored to the file
of this Court and the Registry is directed to list the Writ Petition
before the Hon'ble Court dealing with the said roster, preferably
during the week commencing 16.08.2021. It is open to the
appellants to file counter affidavit in the writ petition. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
15.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2021
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
