Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs The Inspector Of Labour on 26 June, 2025
Author: S.M. Subramaniam
Bench: S.M. Subramaniam
W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 18.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.(MD) No. 1334 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11224 of 2019
The Executive Officer,
Eriyodu Town Panchayat,
Eriyodu Post,
Vedasanthur Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Labour,
Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
2.Savadamuthu,
S/o.Thottiya Gowder,
Kurumbapatti,
Paganatham post,
Vedasandur Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to
allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the Learned Judge in
W.P.(MD) No. 19712 of 2017 dated 17.01.2018.
For Appellant : Mr. V. Omprakash, Government Advocate.
For Respondents : No appearance for R1 and R2.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria clete, J)
Heard.
2.This writ appeal is filed by the Executive Officer of Eriyodu Town
Panchayat. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(MD) No. 19712 of 2017 dated 17.01.2018. By the said order, the learned
Judge upheld the decision of the first respondent, namely the authority constituted
under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status
to Workmen) Act, 1981. The authority had granted permanent status to the second
respondent, who was working as an Overhead Tank Operator in the appellant
Panchayat.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
3.This appeal was admitted by an earlier Division Bench of this Court on
27.11.2019. The contesting respondent has entered appearance through his
counsel. The second respondent was employed as an Overhead Tank Operator.
Since his services were not regularised, he approached the first respondent, who is
the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 to confer permanent
status in respect of industrial establishment covered under the Act. After issuing
notice to both parties and considering their submissions, the authority passed an
order dated 07.09.2017, directing the appellant Panchayat to confer permanent
status on the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed
W.P.(MD) No. 19712 of 2017 before the learned Single Judge.
4.The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition dismissed the same
and confirmed the order passed by the first respondent authority. Before the said
authority, the second respondent had contended that several individuals working in
the Panchayat had been regularised in service. He pointed out that there were four
sanctioned posts of Overhead Tank Operators, and after regularising three others,
he alone had been left out. It was in those circumstances that he approached the
first respondent seeking conferment of permanent status. The authority, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
examining the records, found that the second respondent had completed 480 days
of continuous service within a span of 24 consecutive calendar months as on
22.08.2001. Accordingly, by order dated 07.09.2017, the authority directed that the
second respondent be made permanent with all attendant benefits with effect from
23.08.2001.
5.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Panchayat filed the writ
petition. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that there was no
sanctioned post available in which the second respondent could be regularised. It
was further argued that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 would not
apply to the appellant Panchayat. The appellant also took the stand that the second
respondent had not been in continuous employment since 1996, as claimed by
him, and that he was in fact a contractor engaged to maintain the Overhead Tank in
the Panchayat. However, the authority, after considering all these objections,
rejected the contentions raised by the Panchayat and passed the order conferring
permanent status on the second respondent.
6.The learned Single Judge held that the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 would
apply to the Panchayat in view of the definition found in Section 2 (3)(a) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
said Act, which extends its applicability to all factories. Referring to the provisions
of the Factories Act, the Court observed that an establishment would qualify as a
factory if there is a manufacturing process involved, and such process includes the
pumping of water. In the present case, since the Panchayat employs more than ten
persons and water is pumped using electrical power, the learned Judge concluded
that the Panchayat would squarely fall within the scope of the Act and therefore its
applicability cannot be disputed.
7.It was also stated that the question of sanctioned post may not arise at all
in the present case, in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Umrala
Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, reported in 2015
(II) LLJ 403. In that judgment, the Court had distinguished the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1
and a reference was made to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which
specifically prohibits the commission of unfair labour practices by employers, as
enumerated in Schedule IV of the Act, and provides for penalties in such cases.
8.However, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the issue, merely
noted that the Panchayat consists of 15 wards and has a total of 21 overhead tanks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
in operation. The Court observed that such a volume of work, being of a perennial
nature, cannot reasonably be managed by only four persons. Therefore, the Judge
opined that the Panchayat ought to take steps to get additional sanctioned posts to
meet the manpower requirement. The learned Judge also rejected the contention of
the Panchayat that there was no employer-employee relationship between the
Panchayat and the second respondent. It was found that tenders had been floated
for manning the post of Overhead Tank Operator, and the second respondent had
participated in the tender process and was awarded the work for maintaining the
water tank.
9.It is not clear to this Court as to how the matter can be decided based on
surmises and conjectures. The role of an Overhead Tank Operator is not a full-time
engagement. It is a matter of common knowledge that the motor in each overhead
tank is operated only for a limited duration, typically in the morning hours and, if
required, again in the evening. In such circumstances, a single operator is capable
of managing multiple tanks. When that is the factual position, it cannot be
presumed without basis that four operators are insufficient to manage 21 overhead
tanks. The conclusion drawn in that regard appears speculative and unsupported
by any concrete evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
10.The regularisation of the other three individuals was pursuant to a
Government Order which extended the benefit of regularisation to those who had
completed more than ten years of service. It is not in dispute that the second
respondent does not fall within the scope of that Government Order. However, for
invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, it is essential to first
establish that the Panchayat qualifies as an industrial establishment within the
meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. In the present case, it is admitted that only
four Overhead Tank Operators are engaged in operating the tanks. Even if one
assumes, for the sake of argument, that the activity of pumping water with the aid
of power constitutes a “manufacturing process,” the definition of a factory under
the Act would still require the presence of at least ten workers. One cannot simply
club together all other employees of the Panchayat—such as clerical or
administrative staff—for the purpose of reaching the threshold of ten workers
under the Factories Act. To do so would be contrary to the scheme and language of
the Act. It is well established that within a larger administrative establishment,
there may exist several distinct industrial establishments, and only those that fall
squarely within the definition under Section 2 (3) of the Act can be brought within
its scope for conferment of permanent status.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
11.It is indeed unfortunate, but the legal position is clear — for a person to
claim the benefit of permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, two
conditions must be satisfied. First, he must be employed in an industrial
establishment as defined under Section 2 (3) of the Act. Second, he must also fall
within the definition of a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In
the present case, it was the specific stand of the appellant Panchayat that the
second respondent had participated in a tender process and was awarded the
contract for operating the Overhead Tank. This factual position was not denied by
the second respondent, nor was it rejected by the learned Single Judge. If that is
so, the question that naturally arises is — how can such a person, who secured the
engagement through a tender process and was not directly employed by the
Panchayat, be considered a “workman” so as to attract the benefits under the Tamil
Nadu Act 46 of 1981?
12.Thus, this Court is of the view that both the first respondent authority as
well as the learned Single Judge have misdirected themselves on a fundamental
question of law. They have erroneously conferred the benefit of permanent status
on the second respondent, despite the admitted position that he was a contractor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
who had been engaged to perform a contract for service. A person so engaged
cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be treated as a “workman” within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result, he cannot
seek or be granted the statutory benefits which are exclusively meant for workmen
who are employed under a contract of service.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 19712 of 2017 dated 17.01.2018 is liable to be set
aside and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the first
respondent dated 07.09.2017, whereby permanent status was conferred on the
second respondent, shall also stand set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands
allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that if the
second respondent is otherwise entitled to regularisation under any Government
Order, the Judgment passed in this writ appeal shall not stand in the way of his
seeking such relief in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected
miscellaenous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J) (A.D.M.C., J)
26.06.2025
ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
and
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
To
1.The Executive Officer,
Eriyodu Town Panchayat,
Eriyodu Post,
Vedasanthur Taluk,
Dindigul District.
Judgment made in
and
2.The Inspector of Labour,
Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 01:20:16 pm )
