Madras High Court
W.A.No.273/202 vs The Superintending Engineer on 20 January, 2023
1/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 20-01-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.Nos.273 & 275 of 2020
W.A.No.273/2020 :
I.Selvaraju
2.M.Periyasamy
3.P.Saravanan
4.N.Gopalsamy
5.S.Senthil Raja
6.M.Senthil Kumar ... Appellants
-vs-
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Namakkal – 637 001.
2.The Inspector of Labour,
Office of the Inspector of Labour,
Authority under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,1981,
Namakkal.
3.R.Gopi
4.S.Paramasivam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
5.S.Sakthivel
6.S.Rajesh Kumar ... Respondents
(Respondents 3 to 6 are given up)
W.A.No.275/2020 :
1.R.R.Senthilkumar
2.N.Ramachandran
3.S.Boopathi
4.S.Soundararajan
5.G.Logesh
6.S.Magalingam
7.M.Srinivasan
8.S.Madeswaram
9.M.Srikanth
10.P.Senthilkumar
11.A.Sivagandhi
12.R.Selvakumar
13.S.Mohan
14.M.Saravanan
15.M.Manikandan ... Appellants
-vs-
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Namakkal – 637 001.
2.The Inspector of Labour,
Office of the Inspector of Labour,
Authority under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,1981,
Namakkal.
3.N.Kulandhaivel
4.P.Veerappan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
5.S.Sivakumar
6.R.Murugesan
7.V.Muthukumar
8.N.Sadasivam
9.R.Kanakaraj
10.R.Venkatachalam
11.D.Anbalagan
12.N.Muthukumar
13.B.R.Ravi
14.N.Aanbalagan
15.T.Velmurugan
16.R.Gunasekaran
17.M.Boopathi
18.P.Murugan
19.M.Thiru Kumaran
20.K.Damodharan
21.S.Sekar
22.P.Thirumoorthy
23.A.Gunasekaran
24.K.Perumal ... Respondents
(Respondents 3 to 24 are given up)
W.A.No.273 of 2020 is filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order, dated 24.10.2019, passed in W.P.No.30195 of 2016, on the file of this
Court.
W.A.No.275 of 2020 is filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order, dated 24.10.2019, passed in W.P.No.30198 of 2016, on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants in both appeals : Mr.K.Selvaraj
For Respondent 1 in both appeals : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-workmen would submit tht
the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of
this Court in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 and Batch, dated 07.03.2022.
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
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.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (J.S.N.P.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 20-01-2023
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
dixit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Namakkal – 637 001.
2.The Inspector of Labour,
Office of the Inspector of Labour,
Authority under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,1981,
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/7 W.A.Nos.273 & 275/2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
dixit
W.A.Nos.273 & 275 OF 2020
20-01-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
