Madras High Court
The Executive Engineer vs The Labour Inspector on 12 April, 2023
W.P No.16060 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.16060 of 2010
and M.P. No.1 of 2010
The Executive Engineer,
TWAD Board, Maintenance Division,
No.15, Ragupathy Layout,
2nd Street, S.R.P.Nagar,
Siruvani,
Coimbatore – 641 011. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Labour Inspector,
Coimbatore.
2. D.Radhakrishnan
3. R.Nagamanickam
4. N.Maarimuthu
5. S.Loganathan
6. S.Thandapani
7. R.Ramachandran
8. M.Venkatasalapathi
9. C.Devendiran
10. N.Palanichamy
11. S.Isakiraj
12. V.Mohanraj
13. N.Muthu
14.K.Veluchamy
15.R.Balu
16.N.N.Karuppusamy
17.S.Panchalingam
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
18.V.Murugesan
19.K.Suresh Kumar
20.A.Narayanasamy
21.P.Manikandan
22.N.Prakash
23.R.Subramanian
24.M.Nadaraj
25.M.Anguraj
26.N.Suresh
27.S.Muthukumar
28.M.Arulkumar
29.C.Marimuthu
30.L.Sankaralingam
31.K.Rajadurai
32.S.Kalaichelvan
33.I.Nazir
34.N.Senthilkumar
35.A.Nachimuthu
36.P.Sivakumar
37.D.Vadivel Kumar
38.A.Shanmugam
39.D.Kaliyappan
40.K.Palanichamy
41.R.Krishnakumar
42.A.Maasani
43.S.Rakkimuthu
44.M.Zakir Hussain
45.K.Nadraj
46.A.Udayakumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India to
issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No.E./2056/07 to quash the
order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the first respondent.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Ravindran
Senior Counsel
For Respondent -1 : Mr.S.Ravikumar
Special Government Pleader
R2-R20, R22-R35 & R42-R45 : Mr.M.Muthu Pandian
Respondents:21,36,37,41 & 46 : No appearance
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first
respondent in No.E/2056/07 dated 25.03.2010 that the respondents 2-46
should be granted permanent status by the petitioner board.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell is that:
The respondents 2-46 have filed a petition before the first respondent to
regularise the employment of 46 persons as if they have worked nearly 480
days as contract labourers before the petitioner board. Hence the workmen
approached the first respondent for regularising their employment and
permanent status. The first respondent passed an order in No.E/2056/07 dated
25.03.2010 directing the petitioner board to grant permanent status to the 46
workmen and regularise their employment. Aggrieved by this order the
petitioner board has come forward with the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner board
submitted that the first respondent has not impleaded the contractor who
engaged 46 persons to prove that they are contract labourers and hence the
petition before the first respondent is not maintainable and it has no
jurisdiction. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per 12(3)
Settlement reached with C.I.T.U. dated 08.08.1996, after 01.06.1996 the
temporary employees are not entitled for regularisation of their employment.
The first respondent without considering the objections and averments made in
the counter affidavit had illegally passed the impugned order in violation of
the law laid down in service jurisprudence.
4. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment on this Court
passed in W.A. No.273 and 275 of 2020 dated 20.01.2023 and based on the
Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P. No.4061 of 2013 and batch
dated 07.03.2022. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder:
“2. Paragraph 34 of the above said decision reads as under:
“34. We have considered the submission aforesaid and
find that the order passed by the Labour Inspector needs to be
interfered with remand of the case. It is, however, to be made
clear that the Labour Inspector would not cause enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
beyond the powers given under the Act of 1981 and thereby
would not be having jurisdiction to adjudicate the
complicated questions of fact and law in reference to any
other statute than the Act of 1981. The Labour Inspector may,
for the purpose of conducting summary enquiry, allow the
parties to produce. Documents and if any of the workmen has
completed 480 days of continuous service in 24 calendar
months, appropriate directions can be issued for granting
permanency. However, even if such an order is issued, it
should be with a clear finding about each workman and the
number of working days by referring to the period of 24
calendar months. The benefit as to the consequences
thereupon would be only for the period of employment and if
any of the workmen is discontinued or not in service, he would
be entitled to the benefit only for the period of service and not
beyond that and, that too, after the completion of continuous
service of 480 days in 24 calendar months, and not for a prior
period. The direction aforesaid is not driven by the settlement
for the reason that the workmen herein are those who were
not extended the benefit of settlement and, therefore, sought
claims by maintaining claim separately. However, it would
not preclude both the sides from entering into settlement, if
they so choose, during the period of summary enquiry by the
Labour Inspector. The issue as to whether the respondents fall
within the definition of "workman" is however decided against
the petitioner Corporation, as not only a settlement was
entered, but adjudication about claim to seek permanency has
been decided earlier in reference to similarly placed."
3. In view of the above said decision of this Court, these Writ
Appeals are also disposed of. However, we make it clear that the
authority can go into the question as to whether the contract is sham
and nominal and, if it is sham and nominal, he has no authority to
decide the issue and the matter has got to be decided either before the
Industrial Adjudicator or the authority under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The authority is expected to
decide the issue as early as possible on day-to-day basis, without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time,
as the same is pending for more than 25 years. No costs.”
5. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted
that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
20.01.2023 passed in W.A. No.273 and 275 of 2020, the respondents are
inclined to approach the Labour Court for remedy.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. In the instant case the first respondent has not impleaded the
Contractor who has engaged 46 persons to prove that they are employed as
contract labourers. Secondly as per the 12(3) Settlement reached with C.I.T.U.
Dated 08.08.1996, after 01.06.1996 the temporary employees are not entitled
for regularisation of their employment.
8. In view of the above stated reasons and the ratio laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 and batch, dated
07.03.2022, followed in W.P.Nos.273 and 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023, the
order passed by the first respondent in No.E/2056/07 dated 25.03.2010, is
liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents 2-46 are
at liberty to approach the Labour Court for appropriate relief. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bkn
To:
The Labour Inspector,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.16060 of 2010
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
bkn
W.P.No.16060 of 2010
12.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
