Madras High Court

The Management vs Thiru M.Ramasamy on 24 April, 2025

                                                                                           W.P.No.14690 of 2020

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                         (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                                         RESERVED ON  : 24.03.2025
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 24.04.2025

                                                      PRESENT:

                                  THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

                                            W.P.No. 14690 of 2020
                                                      and
                                            W.M.P.No.18264 of 2020

                The Management,
                Government Silk Farm
                Rep.by its Assistant Director,
                Ladies Seat Road,
                Yercaud – 636 601, Salem.                                      …. Petitioner

                                             Vs.
                1.Thiru M.Ramasamy,
                S/o. Marimuthu,
                Soosaigiri, Murugan Nagar,
                Yercaud – 636 601.

                2. Assistant Commissioner of
                Labour, (Implementation)
                Salem.                                               …. Respondents

                Prayer in W.P.
                To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction in
                the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order dated 30.10.2019
                of the 2nd respondent and quash the order dated 30.10.2019 of the Hon’ble
                Assistant Commissioner of Labour in case No. B/6426/2015.



                1/16


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )
                                                                                        W.P.No.14690 of 2020



                Prayer in WMP
                To stay the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of
                Labour (implementation), Salem.

                Appearance of Parties:

                For Petitioner        : Mr.Muthukumar, AAG (XI) assisted by
                                   Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGP.

                For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel
                            For M/s.V.Subramani, Apunu and V.Sivaraman,Advocates

                For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.Suresh, Advocate.

                                                    JUDGMENT

Heard.

2.The Petitioner in the present writ petition is the Government Silk Farm,

represented by its Assistant Director. The challenge is to the order dated

30.10.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent, who is the Competent Authority

under Section 5(b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments

(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.

3.By the impugned order, the Authority held that the 1st Respondent had

rendered service for more than 480 days within a continuous period of 24

calendar months commencing from 01.03.1984 and, therefore, was entitled to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

be conferred with permanent status. Consequently, a direction was issued to the

writ petitioner to confer such status upon him.

4.Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the 1st Respondent has filed a

counter affidavit dated 22.03.2025.

5.When the matter was listed on 28.10.2021, a learned Judge of this Court

directed that this writ petition be tagged along with W.P. Nos. 12040 of 2008,

25178 of 2008, and 25179 of 2008, which involved the same parties. It is now

brought to the notice of this Court that all the aforementioned writ petitions

have been disposed of by a common order dated 02.12.2024.

6.The Petitioner Silk Farm contended that their establishment is engaged

in maintaining mulberry gardens and rearing silkworms, which are seasonal

activities carried out between February and September each calendar year.

During the remaining four months, owing to monsoon and winter conditions, no

substantial sericulture-related operations are undertaken. It was submitted that

during this off-season period, casual labourers are engaged solely for watch and

ward duties.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

7.It was further alleged that the 1st Respondent is in the habit of

instituting multiple proceedings. According to the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent

had worked as a casual labourer up to 27.09.2002 and was engaged purely on a

temporary basis. An order reflecting his temporary engagement was served on

him on 01.10.2002.

8.Pursuant to the Government Order, the department submitted proposals

recommending the grant of permanent status to daily wage workers who had

completed 10 years of continuous service. Based on these proposals, the

Government issued an order dated 23.02.2010 conferring permanent status on

the eligible workers.

9.The Government also issued a clarification that the benefit of G.O.

(Ms) No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated

28.02.2006, would apply only to those daily wage workers who were in service

as on 01.01.2006 and had completed 10 years of service by that date. It would

not extend to those who completed 10 years of service subsequent to that cut-

off date.

10.In the present case, the 1st Respondent had not reported for duty from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

01.10.2002 to 16.02.2010—a period spanning nearly eight years—and was

therefore not in service on the crucial date of 01.01.2006.

11.When the 1st Respondent was not granted permanent status, he

approached the 2nd Respondent, the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu

Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,

1981, seeking such status. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Authority,

without properly appreciating the materials on record and without examining

the specific facts of the case, proceeded to pass the impugned order

mechanically.

12.In assailing the said order, the learned Additional Advocate General

placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court dated

06.03.2025 rendered in a batch of writ petitions involving claims for permanent

status by workmen employed under TANGEDCO. In the operative portion of

that judgment, while upholding the order passed by the authority in that case,

the learned Judge issued the following directions: –

“In light of this, these writ petitions are disposed of on the following terms:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

(i) The orders passed by the first respondent, which are being challenged in the Writ Petitions and confer permanent status on the respective Workmen, are upheld;

(ii) The Management shall implement the awards by absorbing these Workmen on a permanent basis, and their service shall be counted from the date on which they completed 480 days as ordered by the first respondent. The absorption shall occur with continuity of service; however, the Workmen will not be entitled to any back wages;

(iii) Management can permanently assign them to the same posts and pay scales as the other absorbed contract labourers. This process shall be completed within 12 weeks of receiving or producing the website-uploaded copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy.

(iv) Past service will be regarded as continuous for all purposes;

(v) The workmen will not be entitled to any arrears of back wages.

(vi) If any of the workmen have since passed away, they shall be considered to have died while in regular service of the Management, and the relevant death or terminal benefits shall be paid to their legal heirs;

(vii) If any of the workers have reached retirement age, they will be deemed to have retired from regular service, and all retirement benefits, including gratuity and the provident fund, shall be disbursed to them. The provident fund maintained by the contractor, along with the contributions made, will be taken into account accordingly.”

13.The learned Additional Advocate General also placed reliance on the

decision of this Court in R. Settu v. The Secretary to Government,

Industries Department & Another, W.P. No. 24969 of 2016 dated

16.09.2022, wherein a learned Judge held that a writ petition under Article 226

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

is not maintainable for seeking permanent status. After referring to the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4

SCC 1, the learned Judge declined to grant relief to a daily wage employee

seeking regularization. These two decisions are not of any use to the case on

hand.

14.The 1st Respondent stated that he was initially engaged as a daily

wage labourer on 27.02.1984 at a wage of Rs.8/- per day. Subsequently, when

he, along with three other workmen, was denied employment for a period of 81

days from 12.05.1997 to 31.07.1997, an industrial dispute was raised through

their trade union. Pursuant to this, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.(D)

No. 23, Labour and Employment Department, dated 13.01.1998, referred the

dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Salem. By an award dated

23.02.2000, the Labour Court held that the denial of employment to the 1st

Respondent and the other three workers during the said period was illegal and

declared their entitlement to wages for the period of non-employment.

15.The petitioner firm filed W.P. No. 41897 of 2006 challenging the

award passed by the Labour Court. However, the said writ petition was

dismissed by a learned Judge by order dated 02.12.2024, wherein it was held in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

para 6 and 7 as follows:

“6. The only contention which is raised before the Court is that the Sericulture Farm, being a non-commercial arm of the Government, would not be an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this regard, it can be seen that by a judgement dated 10.06.2008 in W.P.No. 10868 of 1998, this Court speaking through the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Chandru had already decided that the said establishment comes within the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the said judgement itself, the earlier orders of this Court were referred to by the learned judge, and the matter was decided. In view thereof, the plea which is raised by the petitioner management is no longer res-integra.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is without any merits and as such is dismissed. The amount ordered by the Labour Court is due, the same shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

16.Subsequently, yet another dispute arose between the 1st Respondent

and the Petitioner Management, this time concerning the non-payment of wages

for the period from 17.01.2002 to 28.02.2002. The Government, by G.O. (Ms)

No. 470, Labour and Employment Department, dated 05.05.2003, referred the

dispute for adjudication. The Labour Court took up the matter as I.D. No. 180

of 2003 and heard it jointly with I.D. No. 179 of 2003. The Petitioner

Management filed a counter dated 31.10.2003, contending that the 1st

Respondent was making a false claim for wages without having discharged any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

duties during the said period.

17.The Labour Court, Salem, passed a common award dated 19.12.2007

in both disputes and held that the non-payment of wages to the 1st Respondent

for the period from 17.01.2002 to 28.02.2002 was unjustified. In paragraph 12

of the award, the Labour Court observed as follows:

“12. ….It is decided that the respondent wilfully denied employment though the work was available and workman was present for duty. As such the petitioner is entitled to wages with continuity and the point is answered accordingly.”

18.The petitioner management challenged the said award by filing W.P.

Nos. 25178 and 25179 of 2008. Both writ petitions were allowed by a common

order dated 02.12.2024. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order, the Court held

as follows:

“4. It is also stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader based on the written instructions received by him that the wages for the present period covered in the present award has also been paid. The said position is disputed by the learned counsel for the Workman on the ground that no proof is filed.

5. In view of the findings, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following terms:

i) The impugned common award of the Labour Court dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

19.12.2007 made in ID.Nos.179 & 180 of 2003 are confirmed.

ii) The submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that in respect of the period to which the Labour Court had directed the payment of wages have been complied with, is recorded.”

19.It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st

Respondent was once again compelled to raise an industrial dispute in I.D. No.

16 of 2021, challenging the refusal of employment from 01.04.2019. In the said

proceedings, the Assistant Director of the Petitioner Farm was examined as

Management Witness No.1 (MW1). The 1st Respondent produced the transcript

of the cross-examination conducted before the Labour Court, Salem, along with

the admissions made therein. MW1 had admitted that the 1st Respondent had

been employed in the Farm since 1984 and that Provident Fund deductions had

been made. Referring to the two earlier disputes, he further conceded that even

after 35 years of service, he was unsure whether any formal termination notice

had been issued. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that I.D. No. 16 of

2021 was decided in favour of the 1st Respondent by an Award dated

25.02.2025, wherein the Labour Court directed that he be paid wages for the

period of non-employment from 01.04.2019 until the date of retirement, along

with costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

20.In his counter affidavit, the 1st Respondent admitted that he had

attained the age of superannuation on 01.12.2023 during the pendency of I.D.

No. 16 of 2021. He further clarified that his claim for permanent status was not

based on G.O. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006, but was founded on the provisions of

the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to

Workmen) Act, 1981. A perusal of the records placed on file reveals that the

allegation made by the Petitioner Farm—that the 1st Respondent was in the

habit of instituting litigation—is in fact a diversionary attempt to downplay the

repeated instances of illegality committed by the Petitioner. On the contrary, it

is evident that the 1st Respondent was constrained to raise three industrial

disputes, in all of which he succeeded. Two of the resulting awards were

affirmed by this Hon’ble Court through separate orders dated 02.12.2024. In

such circumstances, the persistent failure on the part of the Petitioner Farm, a

state-owned undertaking, to comply with basic legal standards is deeply

concerning.

21.The counsel for the 1st Respondent also placed reliance on the

following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: –

1.State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey (2007 (11) SCC 92)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

2.Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karchari Sanghatana (2009 (8) SCC 556)

3.Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar (2015 (9) SCC 345)

4.Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union (2015 (12) SCC 775)

5.Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd Vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union (2024 SCC Online SC 982)

6.Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1533)

7.Jaggo Vs. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826)

8.Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221)

22.The sum and substance of all the judgments is that where there are

specific local statutes providing for regularization or conferment of permanent

status, the principle laid down in Uma Devi’s case would have no application.

In particular, in Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd. v. Tamil

Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 982 (cited as Serial No. 5), the Supreme Court unequivocally held

that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of

Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, cannot be ignored or nullified by a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

public sector corporation. In paragraph 24 of the said judgment, it was observed

as follows:

“24. …in our view would not allow the Corporation to wash its hands off the responsibilities or obligations under the Act, since the construction to be undertaken by the Corporation, is only one of the many activities to be undertaken by it. To take all the workers out of the purview of the Act, especially, when the said workers, like the members of the respondent union, were not the ones undertaking construction is unwarranted.”

23.In the case of Jaggo v. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 3826 (referred to as Serial No.7), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered

and explained the decision in Uma Devi’s case. The relevant discussion is

found in paragraph 20, which reads as follows:

“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:27 pm )

Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee”

24.The above-stated principle was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a subsequent decision in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad,

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 (referred to as Serial No.8).

25.In view of the foregoing, it is too late in the day for the learned

Additional Advocate General to contend otherwise. The petitioner, a

government-owned farm, has utterly failed to establish its case either on facts

or in law. On the contrary, it has compelled the 1st Respondent to approach the

Labour Court, and thereafter this Court, merely to seek redress for the denial of

employment. Now that the 2nd Respondent has ruled in favour of the 1st

Respondent, declaring him entitled to permanent status until the date of his

superannuation and has issued appropriate directions to the petitioner in that

regard, this Court finds no reason to interfere.