Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Electricity ... vs B.Vinayagamurthy on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. Nos. 592, 595, 596, 598 & 599 of 2021
&
C.M.P. Nos. 2508, 2548, 2517, 2523 & 2535 of 2021
W.A. No. 592 of 2021
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
represented by the Chairman,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation
& Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electrcity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Cuddalore. ..Appellants
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vs.
1. B.Vinayagamurthy
2. The Inspector of Labour,
Cuddalore. ..Respondents
Prayer in W.A. No. 592/2021: Writ Appeal as against the order dated
28.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. 78 of 2012.
For Appellants in
W.A. No.592/2021 :: Mr. A.P. Venkatesh Prasad for
M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.
For Respondents
in W.A.No.592/2021:: No appearance for R1
Mrs.V. Yamuna Devi,
Special Government Pleader for
R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The present appeals have been preferred by the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO
in short) challenging the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 78, 97, 156, 235 and 316 of 2012 directing the
appellant Management to implement the order of the authority under the
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981.
2. The private respondents, who were working as daily labourers
and had been in employment under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, which is now called Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation, for more than 12 years, made representations
requesting that they should be made permanent and should be absorbed in
the Corporation and that their services should be regularised. Since the
appellant Corporation did not accede to their request, the private
respondents along with several others raised an industrial dispute before the
Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, seeking conferment of permanent status to
them. The Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, after taking into consideration
all the aspects of the matter, by order dated 12.04.2007, directed that the
private respondents should be made permanent and that orders will have to
be passed conferring permanent status within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of the order passed by him. The order passed by the
Inspector of Labour was not challenged by the Corporation and it had
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
become final. However, the order of the said authority was not implemented
and therefore, the private respondents approached this Court by filing writ
petitions seeking implementation of the order passed by the Inspector of
Labour, Cuddalore and the learned Single Judge, by the order under
challenge, allowed the writ petitions holding that the private respondents
are entitled to be granted permanent status as per the order of the said
authority. Hence, the present writ appeals, at the instance of the
Corporation.
3. Eventhough the names of private respondents have been printed
in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation.
5. On a perusal of records, it is seen that the Inspector of Labour,
Cuddalore, after analyzing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion
that the employees concerned were direct labourers,i.e, they were to be
construed as workers under the principle employer. Eventhough a plea was
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
taken by the Management that the employees were contract labourers, the
authority disagreed with the contention of the Management and granted the
relief sought for. The said order of the authority has not been challenged by
the Management and it had become final. Since the order was not
implemented, the employees/private respondents filed writ petitions, which
came to be allowed as stated supra. When a finding of fact has been
rendered and it has become final, the order of the authority has got to be
implemented.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has relied upon
two judgments of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 1544 of 2022 dated
15.07.2022 and W.A. Nos. 2252 of 2021 etc dated 22.02.2022 to drive
home the point that even if an order had been passed by the Inspector of
Labour under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the benefit would
be available to the employees concerned only for the period during which
they were in the service of the appellant Corporation and not for the period
during which they were not serving the appellant Corporation.
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court, while confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
we make it very clear that in case of disengagement, after the order passed
by the authority, it is open to the employees/private respondents to raise an
industrial dispute challenging non-employment. However, when the finding
rendered by the authority that the employees are direct labourers has
become final, it cannot be re-agitated if an industrial dispute is raised by the
employer. The employees would be entitled to monetary benefits upto the
date of disengagement in terms of the orders of the Division Bench and in
case, they are in service, they are entitled to other benefits that are
applicable to the regular employees,who are working.
8. If the order of the authority under the 1981 Act is not complied
with, it is open to the employees concerned to launch prosecution in terms
of Section 6 of the said Act and the authority concerned shall sanction
prosecution and the Criminal Court, when this issue is tried, shall proceed
with the matter, on a day-today basis without adjourning the case beyond 15
working days at any point of time and bring the issue to a logical end.
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. With the above observation, the writ appeals are disposed of
accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 09.08.2023
To
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
represented by the Chairman,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation
& Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electrcity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Cuddalore.
4. The Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
W.A. Nos. 592, 595, 596,
598 & 599 of 2021
09.08.2023
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
