Madras High Court
The Management Of vs The Inspector Of Labour on 22 June, 2023
W.P.No.25390 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition No.25390 of 2014
The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Ltd., 37, Mettupalayam Road
Coimbatore – 641 043. …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Inspector of Labour
Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status
to Workmen), Act 1981
Coimbatore.
2.G.J.John Kennady …. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the order passed in
Na.Ka.No.1142/2009 dated 30.10.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadanam
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Appunu – for R2
R1 - Court
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25390 of 2014
ORDER
The case of the writ petitioner is that the Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen), Act
1981 does not have the jurisdiction in the light of the 12(3) Settlement arrived at
between the Union and the writ petitioner relating to the very workman.
2. The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') was
appointed as a Conductor on a daily wage basis from 17.09.1998. On
16.05.1999, he was terminated from service. Challenging the termination,
W.P.No.10165 of 1999 was presented. The said writ petition was disposed of
directing the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Management') to
reinstate the workman in service, as he had completed 240 days of service.
Pursuant to the order, the workman was reinstated on 14.02.2000.
3. Against the order passed in W.P.No.10165 of 1999, the Management
filed W.A.No.1044 of 2003 and that was dismissed on 05.04.2004. Thereafter,
the workman was issued with a show cause notice by the Management, calling
upon him to show cause why he should not be terminated as he has not
completed 240 days. The said order was challenged by way of a writ petition in
W.P.No.17505 of 2004. This Court had granted an interim order and by virtue of
that, the petitioner was continued in service. On 01.09.2005, the Management
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25390 of 2014
appointed the workman as a daily wage Conductor. It also regularised his
service from 01.07.2006. The workman approached the 1st respondent, who is
the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen), Act 1981. His
prayer was that he should be regularised from 10.01.2000, when he was
reinstated pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.10165 of 1999.
4. It is the case of the Management that pursuant to the 12(3) Settlement
the workman, had been regularised from 01.07.2006. Hence, the workman is not
entitled to make a claim that he should be regularised from 14.02.2000. This is
the issue to be decided.
5. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Mr.S.Appunu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent workman would bring to my
notice that this very issue had been argued before my brother Justice
P.D.Audikesavalu in W.P.No.15463 of 2017. The relevant portion is paragraph
No.4, which is extracted hereunder:
“4. It is vehemently contended by the Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that when the Second Respondent had accepted the benefit
of confirmation in service in terms of settlement under Section 12(3) of
the I.D. Act without any demur, he is estopped from invoking the
provisions of the Permanent Status Act. It must, at once, be pointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25390 of 2014
out here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Oswal Agro
Furane Ltd., -vs- Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union [(2005) 3
SCC 224] has reiterated the legal position that a settlement cannot be
arrived between the employer and its employees under the provisions
of the I.D. Act, without satisfying the requirements of law or in
contravention of legal provisions. When it is not in dispute that the
Second Respondent was employed from 20.05.1998 onwards following
the prescribed procedure of recruitment through employment
exchange, he is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of equality of
opportunity and treatment in public employment under Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. As such, the Petitioner could not unilaterally
treat as if the Second Respondent had worked only from 20.08.1998
merely because the daily paid appointment was given from that date.
The conferment of permanent status on the Second Respondent with
effect from 12.12.2000, when he completed 480 days of 'continuous
service' in a period of 24 calender months in the establishment of the
Petitioner, is more beneficial than the confirmation of service granted
by the Petitioner to him with effect from 01.09.2008.”
6. Therefore, reading of this judgment brings to our notice that the
statutory benefit that had been conferred on the workman cannot be unilaterally
be withdrawn or postponed by the Management under the guise of a 12(3)
settlement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25390 of 2014
7. Learned counsel for the Management would bring to my notice an order
passed by this Court in W.A.No.2055 of 2021 dated 27.02.2023. The said writ
appeal relates to workmen in Electricity Board. The workmen in Electricity Board
are a different class in themselves by virtue of a 18(1) settlement, which has
been recognised by this Court in W.A.No.1302 of 2003. The workmen in
Electricity Board cannot be treated on par with the case at hand because, the
workman herein had been put back into service by virtue of an order of this
Court in W.P.No.10165 of 1999.
8. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the 1st respondent. The
writ petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
22.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
KST
To
The Inspector of Labour
Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status
to Workmen), Act 1981, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25390 of 2014
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
W.P.No. 25390 of 2014
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
