Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 February, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
W.P.No.25453 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.25453 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tiruvannamalai – 606 604. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Energy Department, Chennai – 9.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Labour and Employment Department,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Inspector of Labour,
Thiruvannamalai.
4.R.Sekar
5.B.Sekar
6.S.Munusami
7.R.Vijayan
8.P.Thanigai Giri Vasan
9.N.Manogaran
10.S.Rathinavelu
11.S.K.kannan
12.S.Chandrasekaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
W.P.No.25453 of 2010
13.M.Sivagnanam
14.K.Srinivasan
15.M.Sivaraj
16.R.Sivakumar
17.K.Boopalan
18.S.Panneerselvam
19.S.Balaji
20.K.Elumalai
21.P.Elumalai
22.C.Pachaiyappan
23.G.Ramajayam
24.M.Ravichandran
25.V.Jaysankar
26.G.Pachaiyappan
27.A.Gajendiran
28.G.Gnanasekaran
29.N.Venkatesan
30.G.Ramajayam
31.K.Annamalai
32.G.Karthikeyan
33.K.Raman
34.D.Tamilselvan
35.A.Gopi
36.P.Ramasami ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
third respondent relating to his award dated 19.10.2009 and made in
Pa.Mu.E.2602 / 2008 and quash the same as illegal and without
jurisdiction.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Agam Legal Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.E.Sundaram
Government Advocate [R1 & R2]
Mr.S.Elumurugan [R7, R9, R11,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 8
W.P.No.25453 of 2010
R16, R17, R32 & R35]
No appearance [R3 to R6, R8,
R10, R12 to R15, R18 to R31,
R33, R34 & R6]
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari,
to call for the records of the third respondent relating to his award dated
19.10.2009 and made in Pa.Mu.E.2602 / 2008 and quash the same as
illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the private
respondents/workmen filed claim petitions under Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981 (in short 'the Act') before the third
respondent/Labour Court. The private respondents are contract labourers
under the control of the Superintending Engineer/Thiruvannamalai
Electricity Distribution Circle/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and they had
put in a service of 480 days within a continuous period of 24 calendar
months and therefore, they are entitled for conferment of permanent
status. The third respondent/Labour Court, inadvertently adjudicated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issue and passed award in favour of the private respondents/workmen
that their claim can be entertained in terms of Section 3 of the Act.
Challenging the same, the above writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private
respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be
adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case,
the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the
issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in
W.A.Nos.273 & 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays
for allowing the above writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7, 9, 11, 16, 17,
32 and 35 did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 32 and 35
and perused the materials available on records.
6. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.Nos.273 & 275 of
2020, has passed the following judgment on 20.01.2023 :
“Learned counsel appearing for the
appellants-workmen would submit that 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
7. In view of the above said decision of this Court, the impugned
order passed by the third respondent/Labour Court, dated 19.10.2009 is
set aside. The private respondents/workmen are at liberty to raise a
dispute either under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or
under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 before
the Industrial Tribunal in the manner known to law.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Energy Department, Chennai – 9.
2.The Secretary to Labour and Employment Department,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Inspector of Labour,
Thiruvannamalai.
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
