Tamil Nadu Water Supply And ... vs The Labour Inspector Under
2023 Latest Caselaw 4660 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4660 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 April, 2023

Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu Water Supply And ... vs The Labour Inspector Under on 24 April, 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 24.04.2023

                                                        CORAM:

                           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

                                               W.P.No.28200 of 2011
                                                       and
                                               M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

                     Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
                     Rural Water Scheme,
                     Sewerage Division, Krishnagiri,
                     Rep. by its Executive Engineer,
                     having Office at No.28 A, West Link Co-op Colony,
                     Krishnagiri - 635 001.                              ...Petitioner

                                                          Vs
                     1. The Labour Inspector under
                        the Tamil Nadu Industrial
                        Establishments (Conferment of
                        Permanent Status to
                        Workmen Act)
                        Krishnangiri.
                     2. M.Ganeshan
                     3. G.Murugan
                     4. T.Muniraj
                     5. Shanthamurthy
                     6.V.Mani

                     1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     7.N.Kumar
                     8.M.Seenivasan
                     9.C.Chinnasamy
                     10.Sivalingam
                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the
                     proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa/1454/2009 dated
                     30.05.2010 and quash the same.
                                        For Petitioners      :      M/s.S.Mekhala
                                        For Respondents :           Mr.S.Ravikumar,
                                                                    Special Government Pleader.
                                                                 ORDER

The above writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first

respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa/1454/2009, dated 30.05.2010 that the respondents

2 to 10 should be granted permanent status by the petitioner board.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell is that:

The respondents 2 to 10 have filed a petition before the first respondent

to regularise the employment of 9 persons as if they have worked nearly

480 days as contract labourers before the petitioner board. Hence the workmen

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis approached the first respondent for regularising their employment and

permanent status. The first respondent passed an order in

Na.Ka.No.Aa/1454/2009, dated 30.05.2010, directing the petitioner board to

grant permanent status to 42 workmen including the present petitioners 2 to 10

and regularise their employment. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner board

has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner board

submitted that the first respondent has not impleaded the contractor who

engaged 9 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment on this Court

passed in W.A.Nos.273 & 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time, as the same is pending for more than 25 years. No costs.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted

that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated

20.01.2023, passed in W.A.Nos.273 & 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 9 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

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 and batch, dated