Madras High Court
The Management vs T.Senthilkumar on 30 August, 2023
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
Writ Appeal No.2775 of 2022
The Management
General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Salem) Limited
No.12, Ramakrishna Salai
Salem 636 007. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. T.Senthilkumar
2. Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981
Salem. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 27.01.2022 made in W.P.No.31897 of 2019.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Raja
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Ajay Khose for R1
Mrs.V.Yamunadevi
Special Government Pleader for R2
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble S.Vaidyanathan,J)
The Management has come up with this appeal assailing the
order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order conferring
permanent status to the employee.
2. The first respondent/writ petitioner has joined the services of
the Transport Corporation on 27.10.2007 and he was recruited through
employment exchange. He was conferred with permanent status by
order dated 06.12.2018 with effect from 27.10.2009. Challenging the
same, the appellant filed the writ petition and the same was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the above appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Management contends that
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
the first respondent/workman was working sporadically and that he
was a reserved driver and therefore, he will not be entitled to
permanent status. Further, no documents have been produced by the
employee and the authority has also not discussed in depth to confer
permanent status to the workman.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that in
the light of the deeming provision under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981,
the workman deemed to have attained permanent status, as the
factum of employment, namely entry into service by recruitment
through employment exchange is not in dispute.
5. It is no doubt that burden is on the workman to prove that he
has discharged duty continuously by letting in evidence as per the
judgment in The Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S.Mani
[(2005) 5 SCC 100].
6. In this case, the authority has scrutinised page Nos.17 to 96
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
of the Management book produced by the workman and only
thereafter, has granted permanent status to the workman. The said
finding of fact was rightly not interfered with by the learned Single
Judge.
7. We have also called for the records and verified page Nos.17
to 96 mentioned supra and found that there is a clear evidence to
prove that the workman has rendered continuous service.
8. With regard to the issue of reserved driver, this Court has
rendered findings and granted relief to the workman similarly placed,
in the case of The Managing Director v. The Deputy
Commissioner of Labour [W.A.No.678 of 2023 dated
13.04.2023].
9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ
appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the workman submits that
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
the workman has not been paid the scale of pay applicable to other co-
employees and hence, seeks a direction to pay the entire wages. We
make it very clear that whatever the amount already paid will have to
be adjusted and the difference in amount payable to the regular
employee on and from the date of conferment of permanent status
will have to be paid within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. It is represented by learned counsel for the Management
that subsequently, the workman was disengaged. We make it clear
that till the date of his disengagement, the workman would be entitled
to monetary benefits and it will be open to him to challenge
disengagement, if not done earlier, in accordance with law.
In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.22552 of 2022 is also dismissed.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S., J.)
Neutral Citation : Yes/No 30.08.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
kpl
To
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981
Salem.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2775 of 2022
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J,
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
(kpl)
W.P.No.2775 of 2022
30.08.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
