[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs The Asst.Commissioner Of Labour on 30 April, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 28.11.2025
DELIVERED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)Nos.16609 of 2020; 20477 of 2021;
4983, 25950 to 25954 of 2022; 29968 of 2023; 28176 of 2024;
28229, 28317, 28326, 28578, 28580, 28603, 28622, 28647, 28670, 28686,
28709, 28821 of 2025
&
WMP(MD)Nos.13883 of 2020;
4098, 20096, 20099, 20100, 20102, 20104 of 2022;
25027, 25028, 25029, 25030, 25835 of 2023; 23885, 23887 of 2024;
21944, 22014, 22021, 22167, 22169, 22195, 22215, 22236, 22251, 22292,
22316, 22410, 23305 of 2025;
and
WP(MD)Nos.24657 to 24662, 25234 to 25239, 25391 to 25396,
29089 of 2022; 488 to 493 of 2023; 5030 to 5046 of 2024
&
WMP(MD)Nos.18767, 18772, 18774, 18776, 18777, 18782, 19319, 19322,
19324, 19327, 19328, 19331, 19476, 19479, 19481, 19483, 19485, 19487,
23066 of 2022; 452, 453, 455, 457, 460, 461 of 2023;
4816, 4818, 4822, 4824, 4826, 4828, 4830, 4832, 4834, 4838, 4840, 4842,
4846, 4848, 4852, 4854, 4857 of 2024
1/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.16609 of 2020
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
(TANGEDCO), Madurai.
2. Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
T.Kallupatti, Sindhupatti Min Pirivu,
Sindhupatti,
Madurai District – 625 529.
3. Assistant Engineer,
Thirumangalam West Min Pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District – 625 706.
4. Assistant Engineer,
Thirumangalam Nagar Min Pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District – 625 706.
5. Assistant Engineer,
RCC Yard Kappalur,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kappalur,
Madurai District – 625 706.
6. Assistant Engineer,
Thirumangalam North Min Pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District – 625 706.
2/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
7. Assistant Engineer,
T.Kallupatti Rural Min pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
T.Kallupatti, Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District – 625 532.
8. Assistant Engineer,
Usilampatti South Min pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Usilampatti,
Madurai district – 625 532.
9. Assistant Engineer,
Sengulam Min pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District – 625 706.
10. Assistant Engineer,
Saator Min Pirivu,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Periyur Taluk,
Madurai District – 625 705. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(Enforcement)
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2. S.Pandi
3. P.Sathan
3/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
4. M.Ganesan
5. R.Thirupathi
6. R.Thangapandi
7. R.Andisamy
8. P.Saravana Kumar
9. K.Pandi
10. P.Muthu
11. M.Sethuraman
12. C.Chinnaswamy
13. S.Mayee (expired)
14. A.Guruswamy
15. M.Samuthiram
16. P.Thulasimayan
17. A.Murugan
18. C.Annakodi
19. K.Kannan
20. A.Mahalingam
21. P.Jothibasu ... Respondents
4/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of
the 1st respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.167/2010 and quash its
order dated 31.01.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 to R12
R14 to R21 : Mr.John Vincent
for M/s.S.Seeni
W.P.(MD)No.20477 of 2021
P.Rajasambath ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Theni, Theni District.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Theni District.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
O&M,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO / Thevaram II, Theni District.
... Respondents
5/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.
686/2020 dated 20.03.2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to
regularize the petitioner employment. .
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sam Jegan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 and R3 : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
W.P.(MD)No.4983 of 2022
1. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
K.Pudur, Madurai District.
3. Assistant Engineer (Civil),
Samayanallur PSC/RCC Yard,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Samayanallur,
Madurai District. ... Petitioners
6/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
versus
1. Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health – I,
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishments (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Madurai.
2. S.Suresh
3. I.Francis
4. P.John Kennedy
5. P.Vaikundanathan
6. P.Sathyanathan
7. B.Veerabhadran ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in kD.vz;.</1281/2018 and quash its order dated
25.02.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 to R7 : Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan
7/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.25950 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Venganallur North Sub Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Meenakshi Theatre Road, Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar – 626 142. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2. S.Nallamuthu ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2925-7/2011 and quash its order dated
06.07.2020.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.S.Krishnan
8/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.25951 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Town East Sub Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar – 626 117. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2. P.Chidambaram ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2925-8/2011 and quash its order dated
06.07.2020.
9/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.S.Krishnan
W.P.(MD)No.25952 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Alangulam Gramam Sub Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Alangulam
Virudhunagar. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2. N.Paulraj ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2925-9/2011 and quash its order dated
06.07.2020.
10/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.S.Krishnan
W.P.(MD)No.25953 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Alangulam Gramam Sub Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Alangulam
Virudhunagar. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2. S.Pothiraj ... Respondents
11/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2925-10/2011 and quash its order dated
06.07.2020.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.S.Krishnan
W.P.(MD)No.25954 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Alangulam Gramam Sub Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Alangulam
Virudhunagar. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Virudhunagar.
12/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. M.Kallimuthu ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2925-11/2011 and quash its order dated
06.07.2020.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.S.Krishnan
W.P.(MD)No.29968 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni Distribution Circle,
Theni.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni Distribution Circle,
Theni. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
13/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. S.Kannan
3. J.Kanagaraj
4. V.Sivaperumal
5. V.Vijayakumar
6. C.Chandran
7. M.Prasad
8. E.Balusamy
9. K.Suresh Pandi
10. P.Otchadevan
11. A.Pandi
12. M.Vijayakumar
13. M.Nagarajan
14. A.Thangamuniandi
15. S.Paramasivam
16. S.Selavam
17. M.Easwaran
18. I.Muthuraj
19. M.Sasikumar
14/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
20. A.Raja
21. A.Thangaraja ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st
respondent from proceeding further with regard to the proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.2055/2022 dated 05.12.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Agam Legal
For R1 : Mr.V.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 to R21 : Mr.K.Appadurai
W.P.(MD)No.28176 of 2024
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thoothukudi Electricity Distribution Circle,
Ettaiyapuram Road,
Thoothukudi – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(Enforcement) (In-charge),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Thoothukudi – 628 101.
15/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. V.Karthik ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.E/2185/2014 and quash its order dated
27.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Agam Legal
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.28229 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
North Arasaradi Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 016. ... Petitioners
versus
16/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. R.Rajendirakumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.54 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
W.P.(MD)No.28317 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Munichalai Electricity Circle,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
17/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. M.Chinnathambi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.61 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
W.P.(MD)No.28326 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 007.
18/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Vilangudi Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 018. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. T.Shanmuganathan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.47 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
19/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.28578 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
North Arasaradi Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 016. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. M.Rajesh Kanna ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.53 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
20/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.28580 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Vilangudi Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 018. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. V.Manikandan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.50 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
21/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.28603 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudhur,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Arasamaram Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. P.Lenin Kannan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.65 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
22/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.28622 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudhur,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Arasamaram Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. B.Murugapandiyan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.77 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
23/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.28647 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudhur,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Munichalai Electricity Circle,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. V.Mahilampoo Raja ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.58 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
24/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.28670 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudhur,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Arasamaram Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. M.Venkateshwaran ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.68 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
25/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
W.P.(MD)No.28686 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudhur,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Munichalai Electricity Circle,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. R.Prabakaran ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.59 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
26/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
W.P.(MD)No.28709 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Arasamaram Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 009. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. M.Muthumanickam ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.66 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
27/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
W.P.(MD)No.28821 of 2025
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 007.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Sellur Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
2. K.V.Senthilkumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
28/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.78 of 2011 and quash its order dated
30.10.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Louis
*****
W.P.(MD)No.24657 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. S.Logu Kumaresan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
29/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/325/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.24658 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. I.Sathyendiran ... Respondents
30/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/326/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.24659 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. A.Muthuraja ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
31/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/327/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.24660 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. R.Thirumalaikumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
32/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/328/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.24661 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. M.Belwin Packiyyaraj ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/329/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
33/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.24662 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. P.Suresh ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/330/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
34/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25234 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. M.Subramaniyan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/337/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
35/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25235 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. F.Antony Michael Nicholas ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/339/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
36/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25236 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. A.Antony Xavier ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/338/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
37/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25237 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. A.Saravana Kumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/340/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
38/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25238 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. A.Karuvelmani ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/341/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
39/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25239 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. S.Mari Thangam ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/342/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
40/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25391 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. E.Ganeshan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/331/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
41/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25392 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. C.Kombayya Pandiyan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/334/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
42/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25393 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. P.Paramashivan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/332/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
43/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25394 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. S.Thanga Esakkiyaraja ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/333/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
44/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25395 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. P.Karpagaraj ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/335/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
45/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.25396 of 2022
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
No.131, Ettayapuram Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Tuticorin – 628 101.
2. T.Sathaiya ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.E/336/2018 and quash its common order
dated 27.11.2019.
46/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh,
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.29089 of 2022
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution
Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
East Town Electricity Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar – 620 127. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2.V.Perumal ... Respondents
47/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2925-12/2011 and quash its order dated
06.07.2020.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.488 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
Dindigul.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Thandikudi Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Thandikudi. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
48/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. V.Krishna Kumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.62 of 2011 dated 17.05.2022 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.489 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
Dindigul.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Panchampatti Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Pinthanipatti, N.Panchampatti,
Dindigul. ... Petitioners
versus
49/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
2. V.Eswaran ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.11 of 2013 dated 17.05.2022 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.490 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Panchampatti Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Pinthanipatti, N.Panchampatti,
Dindigul. ... Petitioners
50/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
2. X.Selvam Baskar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.13 of 2013 dated 17.05.2022 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.491 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
Dindigul.
51/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Gandhi Village, Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Gandhi Village,
Dindigul. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, Dindigul.
2. J.Asaithambi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.14 of 2013 dated 17.05.2022 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
52/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.492 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Panchampatti Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Pinthanipatti, N.Panchampatti,
Dindigul. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
2.V.Rajesh Kennedy ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.3 of 2014 dated 17.05.2022 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
53/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.493 of 2023
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
Dindigul.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Chinnalampatti Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Dindigul. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
2.R.M.Karikalan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.55 of 2014 dated 17.05.2022 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
54/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.5030 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Surallipatti Division,
Surallipatti,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle, (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 516. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. P.Ochadevan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-2/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
55/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.5031 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Erasakanayakanur Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 515. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. S.Kannan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-3/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
56/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.5032 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Rajathani South Pirivu,
Andipatti Taluk,
Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. J.Kanakaraj ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-4/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
57/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5033 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti Town Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Andipatti, Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. V.Sivaperumal ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-5/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
58/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5034 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kamayagoundenpatti Station,
Kamayagoundenpatti,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 521. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. V.Vijaykumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
59/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-6/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5035 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti West Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Andipatti, Theni – 625 522. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. C.Chandiran ... Respondents
60/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-7/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5036 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Gudalur Section, Chinnamanur Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 518. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
61/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. M.Prasad ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-8/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5037 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti West Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Andipatti,
Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
versus
62/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. K.Sureshpandi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-10/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5038 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti Town Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Andipatti, Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
63/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. A.Pandi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-11/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5039 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti West Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Andipatti, Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
64/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. M.Vijaykumar ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-12/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5040 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti West Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Andipatti,
Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
65/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. M.Nagarajan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-13/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5041 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
66/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kamayagoundenpatti Section,
Kamayagoundenpatti,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 521. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. A.Thanga Muniyandi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-14/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
67/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.5042 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kamayagoundenpatti Section,
Kamayagoundenpatti,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 521. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. I.Muthuraj ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-15/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
68/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.5043 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Gudalur Section, Chinnamanur Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 518. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. M.Easwaran ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-16/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
69/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
W.P.(MD)No.5044 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Mathurapuri Section,
Mathurapuri,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 531. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. A.Raja ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-17/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
70/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5045 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Andipatti East Electricity Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
2. A.Thangaraja ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
71/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-18/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
W.P.(MD)No.5046 of 2024
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni – 625 531.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Surulipatti Section,
Surulipatti,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution
Circle (TANGEDCO),
Theni – 625 512. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Theni.
72/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2. S.Paramasivam ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in Case No.2055-19/2022 and quash its order dated
13.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
*****
COMMON ORDER
Since all these writ petitions deal with the proceedings under the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status
to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereafter referred to as the “Permanent Status
Act”) as against the Management TNEB/ TANGEDCO, they are taken
up together and disposed by way of this common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
2.For the sake of convenience, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
shall hereafter be referred to as the “Management” and the contract
labourers shall be referred to as “workers”.
3.These writ petitions are divided into the following categories:
First Category – (i) WP(MD) Nos.25950, 25951, 25952, 25953, 25954
of 2022, 16609 of 2020, WP(MD) No.28176 of 2024 and WP(MD) No.4983
of 2022 have been filed by the Management as against various orders of
the Authority under the Permanent Status Act granting permanent
status to the respondent labourers.
(ii) WP(MD) Nos. 28821, 28317, 28326, 28229, 28578, 28580, 28603,
28622, 28647, 28670 28686, 28709 of 2025 have been filed by the
Management as against the orders of the Authority under the Permanent
Status Act granting permanent status to the respondent workers. In fact,
in these matters, orders were already passed, assailed before this Court
and was remanded back to the Authority under the Permanent Status
Act to decide on whether the labourers were engaged for 480 days
during the previous 24 calendar months. It was decided by the authority
and permanent status has been granted. It is now assailed in these cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Second category – (i) WP(MD) No.29968 of 2023 is filed by the
Management as against the hearing notice issued by the Authority under
the 1981 Act. According to the Management, the claim for permanent
status of the workmen was already rejected by the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act in Na.ka. No.686 of 2010 vide order dated
20.03.2020 and the same was also confirmed by this court vide orders
dated 11.04.2022 and 19.04.2022. Despite the same, the impugned
hearing notice has been issued.
(ii) WP (MD) No. 20477 of 2021 is filed by the one of the workers as
against the initial order of the Authority dated 20.03.2020 rejecting their
claim for permanent status.
Third category – WP(MD)Nos.24657 to 24662, 25234 to 25239,
25391 to 25396, 29089 of 2022; 488 to 493 of 2023; 5030 to 5046 of 2024
were filed by the Management challenging the orders of the Authority
under the Permanent Status Act granting permanent status to the
contract workers. This Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the
orders of the Authority under the Permanent Status Act by its order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
dated 15.09.2025 and provided liberty to the contract employees to
approach the Labour Court. These writ petitions are listed before this
court under the caption “for clarification”.
4.The Management herein was constituted under the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 (Central Act) on 01.07.1957. It is an industrial
establishment as per Section 2(3) of the Permanent Status Act. In order to
meet the contingent manpower requirements for the electrification of
various parts of the State, the management engaged contract labourers
by way of Board Proceedings in between 1978 and 1990. When the
Management was about to fill 700 helper posts by way of Direct
Recruitment, the contract labourers have claimed preference as they
have been engaged by the Management for several years. This matter
went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In 1991, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court appointed Hon’ble Mr.Justice Khalid, a retired judge of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to examine the issue and recommend the
criteria to be adopted for the recruitment of helpers. Basis on the
recommendations of the Justice Khalid committee, 18,006 contract
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
labourers were absorbed into the services of the Management.
Thereafter, 8,500 contract labourers who were engaged from 1993 were
identified and paid ex-gratia payment. Again, in 2004 – 2005 and in 2005
– 2006, another 15,600 contract labourers were identified, and ex-gratia
payments were made to them. The trade unions representing the
contract laborers submitted a demand for the absorption of contract
workmen and a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act was reached for the absorption of 21,600 contract labourers as
permanent employees in the year 2007. As of the year 2012, contract
labourers who received ex-gratia payments during the years 2011–2012
and continued to provide their services to the management were
absorbed into service. A total of 4,037 contract labourers were absorbed
into the services of the Management in this process.
5.The Management claims that the engagement of contract
labourers was stopped from the year 2012 onwards. However, the
Management has maintained the same system and some workers have
been engaged as contract labourers by the Management even after 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Moreover, some of the contract labourers engaged before 2012 were not
absorbed into the services of the Management. The Management has
engaged the workers in these writ petitions as contract labourers in
essential nature of works such as digging, laying power lines, fixing
breakdowns, installing heavy switches and also providing assistance to
linemen from 1998 and until the year 2014. Therefore, these workers
have made claims under Section 3(1) of the Permanent Status Act that
they were employed for more than 480 days during 24 calendar months
and are entitled for permanent status. Some of their claims have been
allowed by the Authority under the Permanent Status Act and others
have been rejected and these writ petitions arise out of these orders of
the Authority under the Permanent Status Act.
6.Insofar as the first category of writ petitions is concerned, the
common contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
management is that the workers being contract labourers are not entitled
to permanency under the Permanent Status Act and hence the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside. In support of the same, they have put
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
forth the following submissions:
(1)The TNEB/TANGEDCO resorted to the engagement of contract
labourers to meet contingent manpower requirements. Agreements
known as K2/ Chit agreements were signed for executing works
through contractors. These agreements stipulated the amounts payable
to the contractors and they in turn paid the contract labourers engaged.
The Management has regularised the services of the contract labourers
based on the recommendations of the Justice Khalid commission and has
entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act on 10.08.2007 for the absorption of leftover contract labourers.
Consequently, the engagement of contract labourers by the Management
in 2012. Thereafter, the system of engaging contract labourers was
regularised and thereafter the contract labourers were engaged as per
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (hereafter
referred to as “Contract Labour Act 1970”).
(2)The workmen in these writ petitions were admittedly employed
as contract labourers and therefore they can make a claim for absorption
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
only before the Labour Court. Hence, the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act had no jurisdiction to allow the applications for
permanent status filed by the workmen. Further, the Authority under
the Permanent Status Act has stepped into the shoes of the Industrial
Adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act and has addressed
complicated questions of law and facts in the impugned orders.
(3)There was no employer-employee relationship between the
Management and the workmen on the date of filing of the applications
and hence there can be no claim for permanency under the Permanent
Status Act. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies [(2004) 7. SCC 112], the
workmen cannot claim backdoor entry into the services. Further, the
workmen have been engaged in construction related works and hence
they are not entitled for permanency as per Section 7 of the Permanent
Status Act.
(4) The workmen failed to establish that they had been engaged for
more than 480 days in 24 calendar months and the certificates issued by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the Assistant Engineers do not provide details about the number of days
they were engaged as contract labourers. Moreover, some of the workers
claim to be employed as contract labourers before 2007. Hence, they can
make their claims only with reference to the settlement under Section
12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7.Insofar as the second category of writ petitions is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the management that
applications filed by the workmen under the Permanent Status Act was
dismissed by the Inspector of Labour in Na.ka. No.686 of 2010 by order
dated 20.03.2020. The workmen have challenged the same by filing
WP(MD) No.3775 of 2021, etc Batch and WP(MD) Nos.5972, 5974 and
5975 of 2021 before this court which were dismissed vide orders dated
11.04.2022 and 19.04.2022. However, the workmen have once again filed
applications before the Authority under the Permanent Status Act
claiming permanent status by incorrectly representing that their
applications had been remanded back for fresh adjudication. On the
basis of this wrong representation, the Authority under the Permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Status Act has sent the impugned notice of hearing dated 05.12.2022
informing that a hearing into the claim of the respondent workmen was
to be conducted on 07.12.2022.
8.On the other hand, the common contentions of the learned
counsel appearing for the workers in this batch of writ petitions is as
follows:
(1) The workmen were engaged by the Management in essential
works such as digging, laying of lines and other works which are
perennial in nature and not just in construction related works.
(2)The workmen have marked various materials such as their
educational qualifications, Petty Cash Book registers and experience
certificates issued by the Assistant Engineers of the Management before
the Authority under the Permanent Status Act and they have established
continuous employment for more than 480 days during 24 calendar
months. Further, some of the workmen have also placed materials
establishing that payment was directly made to them by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Management. Only after considering the same, the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act has allowed the applications filed by the
workmen.
(3) The workmen were under the control and supervision of the
Management and they were directly paid wages by the officers of the
Management. Hence, there was employer-employee relationship
between the Management and the workmen.
(4)The Inspector of Labour/ Authority under the Permanent Status
Act has been conferred with powers for granting permanent status
under Section 5 of the Permanent Status Act. All the workmen were
engaged by the Management and hence, it cannot be said that the
Inspector of Labour has exceeded his jurisdiction.
9.This court considered the rival submissions and also perused the
materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
10.The Permanent Status Act was introduced with the object of
curbing the unfair labour practice of continuously engaging workers in
industrial establishments on a temporary basis to deny them of the
benefits given to the permanent workers. The Act requires that the
workmen employed continuously for more than 480 days should be
conferred with permanent status. The Management which is involved in
electrification activities is an industrial establishment covered under
Section 2(6) of the Permanent Status Act. As per the Act, the term
“worker” includes any person employed in any Industrial establishment
to perform work for hire or reward. Therefore, the workers in these writ
petitions who were admittedly employed by way of contracts are also
included within the definition of workman under the Permanent Status
Act and hence they have filed applications under the act claiming
permanent status. They have established that they were employed for
more than 480 days by marking materials such as Petty Cash Book
Register, conduct certificates provided by the officers of the Management
and payment receipts before the Inspector of Labour and the Authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
under the Permanent Status Act has conferred them with permanent
status.
11. The Management has assailed the orders conferring
permanency that the Inspector of Labour cannot entertain the claims of
the contract labourers and the workers should approach the Labour
Court for the same. However, Section 5 of the Act which deals with the
powers and duties of the Inspector of Labour provides that the Inspector
of Labour can enter any industrial establishment, examine the registers,
records and persons in the industrial establishment and exercise such
other powers as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the
Permanent Status Act. Therefore, the Inspector of Labour has the
authority to entertain the claims of the workers in these writ petitions.
This court also finds that other workers engaged by the Management in
essential works which are perennial in nature have approached the
Authority under the Permanent Status Act for regularisation and their
claims were allowed by the Authority. The Management has filed
multiple writ petitions challenging the orders of the Authority under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Permanent Status Act. Such orders of the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act has been confirmed by Division Benches of this
court and even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the
Management has implemented the orders of the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act granting permanency to contract labourers. Such
orders are summarised hereunder for easy reference:
(1) In The Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity
Distribution Circle vs. The Labour Inspector, Vellore [2003 SCC Online
Mad 810], contract labourers claiming to have worked for more than 480
days under the Management were granted permanency by the Authority
under the Permanent Status Act. The Management filed writ petitions
against the same claiming that the contract labourers ought to have
approached the Labour Court and that the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act could not adjudicate on the issues raised by the
contract labourers. However, this court rejected such a contention and
held as under:
“35. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission made on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
behalf of the Board that the exercise of the power by the Inspector
of Labour in conferring permanent status after holding
necessary enquiries contemplated under Section 5 read along
with Rule 6(4) should be construed as arrogating to himself the
powers available to the other adjudicatory forums created under
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It will have
to be stated that while the exercise of powers vested with the
Inspector under the provisions of the Act is summary in nature,
the one under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act may
be an elaborate one. Nevertheless the same does not mean that by
exercising the power under the provisions of the Act the
Inspector of Labour would be trespassing into the adjudication
process contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In this context, if the judgment of the Supreme
Court reported in ' Nirchiliya And Others vs. Management Of
Safire Theatre, Madras And Another' (1991 (I) L.L.J. 111) is
applied, it can be safely held that where there is no prohibition
under the provisions of either the Industrial Disputes Act or the
Act, exercise of the power in the manner in which it can be done
by the Inspector of Labour under the Act cannot be found fault
with. It will have to be stated that such an exercise would be well
within the statutory limitations provided under the Act. In fact,
in the above referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the question for consideration was whether the workmen who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
initially raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial
Disputes Act and who did not pursue it till its logical end when
chose to move the authority under the then Madras Shops and
Commercial Establishment Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that in the absence of any prohibition under either of the
enactments, such a course adopted by the workmen cannot be
faulted. Therefore, applying the said ratio to the case on hand, it
can be safely held that the concerned workmen here were placed
in a better footing when they chose to straightaway move the
Inspector of Labour under the Act, inasmuch as according to the
workmen, having regard to the facts prevailing as on date, they
were entitled for the conferment of permanent status as provided
under the Act. If such a claim of the workmen was not factually
maintainable, it was for the Board to have resisted the said claim
with all available materials and could have convinced the
Inspector of Labour as the claim ought not to have been
countenanced. The Board having miserably failed to perform its
duties in the manner expected of it, it cannot be now allowed to
contend or complain against the powers exercised by the
Inspector of Labour which was within the provisions of the Act.
In this context, if the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court reported in Metal Powder Co., Ltd., Thirumangalam and
another vs. the state Of Tamil Nadu And Another (1985 II L.L.J.
376) is applied, then also it can be safely held that the Inspector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
of Labour was well within his jurisdiction in holding the
proceedings in the manner it was held and in passing the order
by directing the petitioner / Board to confer permanent status on
the workmen.”
(2) In The Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam Electricity
Distribution Circle v. the Inspector of Labour and others [2009 [4] MLJ
472], a Division Bench of this court dealt with the issue of enforcement of
orders of Inspector of Labour and the claims of the workers who seek for
permanent status under the provisions of the Permanent Status Act. The
Division Bench held that if the Board as an employer had already
conceded to their status as workmen under the Permanent Status Act,
then there is no necessity to direct the workers to seek adjudication
before the Labour Court. The relevant portions are extracted for easy
reference:
“23. If this was only a case of adjudication of whether the status
of workmen was as directly employed by the Electricity Board or
they were employed only as contract labourers, we would have
directed that the objection should be considered and an
adjudication made in the industrial dispute raised under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The argument advanced
by Shri. Hariparanthaman is that the fate of more than 21,000
workmen was being adjudicated before the Labour Court in I.D.
No. 106 of 2003 and that would be the appropriate forum of
adjudication. He urged that the petitioner in W.P. No. 27714 of
2007 and connected writ petitions ought to have been directed
only to challenge the agreement before the Industrial Tribunal
and not by means of writ petition. We have already seen that
remedy by writ petition itself is not barred and if the board as an
employer has conceded to their status as workmen to whom the
provisions of the T.N. Industrial Establishments (Conferment of
Permanent Status Act) could be applicable, there is no warrant
for directing the parties to seek adjudication before the Industrial
Tribunal. We cannot hold that the agreement itself is tainted
with any fraud or mala fides. As Shri. P.S. Raman, the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the Electricity Board
says that it is simply a case of the board not allowing itself not to
be tied up in knots over a period of time in having adhoc policies
of recruitment and feels upstaged when a problem of gigantic
proportion has arisen where claims to thousands of men and
women were required to be addressed. A public body employing
several thousands of persons could not be blind to realities and
engage them in long litigations and if it is found that
pragmatism dictated that there ought to be a finality to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
litigations and when it had already a judicial decision of a Single
Judge directing permanent status to workmen under the Act, the
pro-active poser to conclude all litigations by an agreement
could not be challenged either as fraudulent or as illegal. Revival
of cadre or increase of cadre strength and specifying lesser
qualifications commensurate with the nature of work through
Board Proceedings could not be faulted, so long as the
Regulations provided for creation of such cadre.”
(3) In R. Ashok vs. Chairman [2013 SCC OnLine Mad 4063],
contract labourers employed by the Management approached the
Inspector of Labour, Karur/ Authority under the Permanent Status Act
claiming that they were engaged in essential works such as digging pits,
erection of electric poles, construction of transformers and in loading
and unloading of line materials for more than 480 days during 24
calendar months. The Inspector of Labour allowed the applications filed
by the contract labourers and their services were directed to be
regularised. The Management filed a writ petition as against the orders
of the Inspector of Labour granting permanent status. Before the
Division Bench, the Management specifically raised a legal contention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
that the workers were contract labourers employed through independent
contractors and hence their claims cannot be entertained by the Inspector
of Labour and it could only be decided by the Labour Court. A Division
Bench of this court specifically rejected such a legal contention by its
order dated 01.02.2013 and the findings of the Division Bench is
summarised as under:
(i)The Permanent Status Act is a beneficial enactment introduced
with the object of curbing unfair the unfair labour practice of employing
workers continuously on a temporary basis to deny them of labour
benefits. Hence, the act should be interpreted so as to protect the rights
of the workers of the weaker sections of the society.
(ii)The Management is an industrial establishment under Section
2(3) of the Permanent Status Act and the definition of a workmen under
Section 2(4) of the Permanent Status Act would include any type of
workman including temporary workmen. Hence, the management is
governed by the provisions of the act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
(iii)The Labour Inspectors appointed under the Permanent Status
Act are not paper tigers and have the power to confer permanent status
on the workers being employed for more than 480 days during 24
calendar months.
(iv)Section 3 of the Act has a non-obstante provision according to
which notwithstanding anything contained in any other act, eligible
workers can be provided with permanent status. Moreover, there is no
bar under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for these workers to approach
the Authority under the Permanent Status Act. Therefore, it is not
mandatory that the workers should approach the Labour Court to seek
relief under the Permanent Status Act.
(4)The above decision of the Division Bench was challenged by the
Management by filing SLP.CC.No.7953 of 2015 and the same was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30.04.2015.
(5) In The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others vs.
Inspector of Labour, Karur [WA(MD) Nos. 339 and 340 of 2025 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
24.11.2016], the contract labourers who were engaged by the
Management for digging, laying cables, etc raised claims before the
Inspector of Labour, Karur/ Authority under the Permanent Status for
regularisation. These claims were allowed by the Inspector of Labour
and the Management filed writ petitions challenging the order of the
Inspector of Labour. Before the Division Bench of this court, the
Management raised a contention that the workers were employed as
contract labourers and hence the Authority under the Permanent Status
Act did not have the jurisdiction to consider their claims. However, the
Division Bench rejected such a contention by order dated 24.11.2016 and
held as under:
“19.It is a well settled position of law that this Court, in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, cannot re-appreciate the factual findings rendered by
the competent authority unless it is shown that the said findings
are perverse or based upon ''no evidence''. This Court, testing
the common order passed by the 1st respondent, is of the
considered view that the said official has exercised his statutory
power well within the ambit of law and also carefully analysed
the documents and other materials placed and rightly reached
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the conclusion and thereby ordered conferment of permanent
status on the private respondents. Furthermore, since the legal
plea raised herein has been settled in the earlier round of
litigations, it is not open to the appellants herein to urge the
very same point in future litigations and even otherwise, there is
no infirmity or perversity attached to the findings rendered by
the 1st respondent and therefore, the said order does not warrant
interference.”
(6)Around 21 claim petitions under the Permanent Status Act were
filed by contract labourers employed by the Management between the
years 2000 to 2007. It was claimed by them that they were engaged by
the Board in various places at the Cuddalore District for more than 480
days. The Inspector of Labour conferred permanency on the contract
labourers that the Management is an establishment under section 2(6) of
the Permanent Status Act, the workers would be included under the
definition of workman under section 2(4) of the Permanent Status Act
and the workers were engaged in various works which was prohibited
under G.O.Ms.950, Labour and Employment Department dated
08.06.1990. A learned Single Judge of this court directed the
Management to implement the above awards in W.P.Nos.7368 –7370,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
6626 – 6628, 7066 – 7068 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011, W.P.Nos. 13458 of 2011
etc. dated 15.09.2011 and W.P.Nos.22657 of 2011 etc. dated 10.10.2011.
The Management filed W.P.Nos.7368 – 7648, 7654 – 7662, 7666 – 7676,
7680 – 7689, 7693 – 7717, 7740 – 7764, 7781 – 7804 and 7831 – 7841 of
2012, challenging all the awards. A learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petitions by a common order dated 27.03.2012 and held as under:
(i)The Standing Counsel for the Management had already agreed
to implement the orders of the Inspector of Labour when writ petitions
were filed to implement the awards.
(ii)The writ petitions challenging the awards were filed with an
inordinate delay of 5 to 7 years and hence was guilty of delay and laches.
(iii)The issue was already settled by this court in The
Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle
v. the Inspector of Labour and others [2009 [4] MLJ 472] wherein it was
held that labourers should not be drawn into long litigations.
As against the above order of the Single Judge, the Management
filed W.A.Nos.1340 and 1341 of 2012 which were dismissed by a
Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.07.2012. As against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
same, the Management filed S.L.P.Nos.24740 to 24741 of 2012. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same by order dated 08.04.2013 by
observing as under:
“Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner.
Special leave petitions are dismissed. However, this will
not preclude the petitioner to apply to the High Court for review
concerning the matters where the petitioner alleges that awards
passed by the Inspector/s of Labour, Cuddalore, Villupuram,
Madurai, Erode, Nagappatinam, Theni Division and Salem are
forged.”
(7) The Management has filed Review Applications in R.A.Nos.89,
103 to 192 of 2015 before this court contending that the awards produced
by the workmen were forged. The same was dismissed by a Division
Bench of this court by order dated 16.10.2015. As against the dismissal of
the Review Applications, the Management filed S.L.P Nos.7222-7312 of
2016 which were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme by order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
21.08.2018. Thereafter, the Management filed multiple writ petitions
once again challenging the orders of the Inspector of Labour in WP. Nos.
21324 of 2011, etc batch and raised a legal contention that the workers
who had filed the applications were contract labourers and hence the
Inspector of Labour had no jurisdiction to confer permanency on them.
However, a Division Bench of this court rejected such a contention and
directed the Management to implement the orders of the Inspector of
Labour by order dated 02.02.2024. The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder for easy reference:
“27. Further, the contention of TANGEDCO is that the claim
petition is not maintainable before the Inspector of Labour under
the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 where contract
labours are involved is a legal plea and it is taken up now for the
first time. We are unable to agree. We have already extracted
their case in the counter in which the said plea is taken. A
specific finding is given in respect of said plea in the award. The
said award is to be held valid and directed to be implemented.
Even in the earliest round decided by the Division Bench in the
Superintending Engineer and Ors. Vs. The Inspector of Labour
and Ors., such a plea has been specifically taken and it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
answered as follows:-
“23.If this was only a case of adjudication of whether
the status of workmen was as directly employed by the
Electricity Board or they were employed only as
contract labourers, we would have directed that the
objection should be considered and an adjudication
made in the industrial dispute raised under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The argument
advanced by Shri. Hariparanthaman is that the fate of
more than 21, 000 workmen was being adjudicated
before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 106 of 2003 and
that would be the appropriate forum of adjudication.
He urged that the petitioner in W.P. No. 27714 of
2007 and connected writ petitions ought to have been
directed only to challenge the agreement before the
Industrial Tribunal and not by means of writ petition.
We have already seen that remedy by writ petition
itself is not barred and if the board as an employer has
conceded to their status as workmen to whom the
provisions of the T.N. Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status Act) could be
applicable, there is no warrant for directing the parties
to seek adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal.”
In any event, the said defence failed in the previous round when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the Writ Petitions were filed to implement the award, cannot
now be considered.”
12.Therefore, the orders of the Inspector of Labour conferring
permanency on contract labourers has been confirmed by various
Division Benches of this court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the legal contention that the Inspector of Labour cannot entertain the
claims of contract labourers has been rejected and hence the
management has implemented the orders of the Inspector of Labour
conferring permanency on contract labourers.
13.In Superintending Engineer, Erode vs. Inspector of Labour [2022
SCC OnLine Mad 1003], the First Bench of this court has approved the
judgment of this court in Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity
Distribution Circle (referred supra) and observed as under:
“22. In view of the above, while we are of the view that the
Labour Inspector has the power to issue appropriate order to
grant permanency to the workmen, it cannot be by adjudicating
the complicated questions of fact and law. A perusal of the Act of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
1981 does not provide power in Labour Inspector of the nature
given to the Industrial Adjudicator, i.e., the Industrial Tribunal
or Labour Court, as complete framework with procedure for it
has been given under the Act of 1947. Certain provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable therein for
proper adjudication which does not exist under the Act of 1981.
23. If the facts of this case are taken into consideration, we
find that the Labour Inspector has recorded his finding in
reference to the Act of 1970 while adjudicating the issue. Such
powers have not been conferred on him, rather he can pass
appropriate order after summary enquiry……
24. The Labour Inspector vested with the power under the
Act of 1981 is said to be having a summary power of enquiry,
while an elaborate adjudication of questions of fact and law can
be only under the Act of 1947.
25. In view of the above, we can safely hold that the
Labour Inspector can exercise jurisdiction only in the nature of
summary enquiry, while a case involving complicated question
of fact and law to be left for its adjudication under the Act of
1947. The Labour Inspector can exercise his power under the
framework of the Act of 1981. He has no power to adjudicate the
issue in reference to other statutes, which includes the Act of
1970.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
However, the First Bench after observing as above has only remanded
the matters back to the Inspector of Labour for a specific finding
regarding whether the workers were engaged for 480 days continuously
and not to the Labour Court. Therefore, it is not the case that the claims
of the contract labourers for permanency has to be only considered by
the Labour Court. Rather, the Inspector of Labour can consider the same
and is required to conduct summary enquiry and make a specific finding
regarding whether the workers have completed 480 days of continuous
employment.
14. However, on the basis of the above observations made by the
First Bench, several Division Benches of this court have taken the view
that if a contract labour makes a claim for permanency, the same cannot
be entertained by the Inspector of Labour and such claims should only
be filed before the Labour Court. In fact, even this court in WP(MD) Nos.
24657 to 24662 of 2022, etc batch dated 15.09.2025 which are listed under
the caption “for clarification” took a stand that the contract labourers
cannot raise their claims before the Inspector of Labour and that they can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
only approach the Labour Court. However, the learned counsels on both
sides have brought the above decisions to the attention of this court
wherein the legal contention that the Inspector of Labour cannot
entertain applications from contract labourers has already been rejected
and such workers were conferred with permanency.
15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Jaggo vs.
Union of India [2024 INSC 1034] held that public employers cannot
resort to labour exploitation by using outsourcing to deny various
benefits to long serving workmen. It was also clarified by the court that
the decision of the court in Umarani (supra) cannot be misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny the legitimate claims of long-serving employees. The
relevant portions are extracted as under:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic
issue that adversely affects workers' right and job security. In
the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment.
Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
undermining labour standards. Government institutions,
entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
….
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments
adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its
principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”
appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and
had served continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However,
the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims
of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not
illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
(supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.
This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles
are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the
private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.”
16.As per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Management, being a public employer, should also not be allowed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
misuse temporary contracts, meant to fulfil short term or seasonal
requirements, to defeat its long-term obligations to the workers.
17.Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347] that when a
particular set of employees are granted relief by the court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, when
contract labourers employed with the Management have previously
been conferred with permanent status and the same has also been
approved by this court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple
instances, then the workers who are similarly placed contract labourers
should also be extended the same benefit of permanent status.
18.Considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Division Benches of this court and in light of the above discussion, the
writ petitions under each category is disposed in the manner detailed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
hereunder.
19.Insofar as the first category of writ petitions are concerned, this
court finds as under:
(1)The Management is an industrial establishment covered under
section 2(3) of the Permanent Status Act.
(2)The Inspector of Labour is the competent authority under the
Permanent Status Act to confer permanent status on the workers who
have been engaged by an industrial establishment for more than 480
days.
(3)The contract labourers are workers under section 2(4) of the
Permanent Status Act and have been engaged in perennial nature of
works such as digging, laying power lines, attending breakdowns and
also in maintenance works. They have established before the Authority
under the Permanent Status Act that they have worked for more than
480 days during a period of 24 calendar months on the basis of materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
such as Petty Cash Book Register, conduct certificates provided by the
officers of the Management and payment receipts.
(4)The Permanent Status Act was enacted in order to curb unfair
labour practices wherein the benefits of permanent employees are
denied to certain set of workers by engaging them on a temporary basis.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India [2024 INSC
1034] has held that public employers cannot resort to labour exploitation
by using outsourcing to deny benefits to long serving workmen. It was
also clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the decision of the court
in Umarani's case cannot be misinterpreted or misapplied to deny the
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. The workers involved in
these writ petitions were engaged as contract labourers through K2/
Chit agreements by the officers of the management. They have provided
many years of service performing essential tasks such as the digging,
laying lines, maintenance works, etc. Therefore, the engagement of the
respondent workmen cannot be termed to be an illegal appointment and
hence the principles in Uma Rani’s case (supra) is not applicable to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
workers.
(5)The main contention of the management is that the workers
have been engaged as contract labourers and that they are not entitled
for permanent status. However, the notification issued under Section 10
of the Contract Labour Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 prohibits the nature of works such as transformer maintenance,
fuse of call, sick transformers repairing work and maintenance of street
lights which is being carried out by the workers in these writ petitions.
Therefore, the contention of the management cannot be accepted.
(6)By following the recommendations of the Justice Khalid
Commission, around 21,000 contract labourers were already regularised
and absorbed into service of the management. Further, multiple orders
have been passed by this court confirming the order of the Authority
under the Permanent Status Act conferring permanent status on contract
labourers and these orders have also been confirmed by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
Supreme Court and the issue has attained finality.
(7) As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347],
similarly situated persons should be treated similarly with regards to
labour benefits. Therefore, when a particular set of workers are granted
relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be
treated alike by extending the same benefit.
20.In light of the orders of multiple Division Benches of this court
confirming the permanent status provided to contract labourers which
were also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and accepted by the
management and also the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Jaggo vs. Union of India [2024 INSC 1034], this court is not inclined to
interfere in the impugned orders of the Authority under the Permanent
Status Act conferring permanency on the workmen. Therefore the writ
petitions in the first category in WP(MD) Nos.25950, 25951, 25952, 25953,
25954 of 2022, 16609 of 2020, WP(MD) No.28176 of 2024, WP(MD) No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
4983 of 2022, WP(MD) Nos. 28821, 28317, 28326, 28229, 28578, 28580,
28603, 28622, 28647, 28670 28686, 28709 of 2025 filed by the management
are dismissed. The management is directed to implement the orders of
the Authority under the Permanent Status Act within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The workmen
shall be provided with continuity of service and attendant benefits.
However, they shall not be entitled to any back wages. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.Insofar as the second category of writ petitions is concerned, this
court finds as under:
(1)The workers involved in this category with a claim that they
were engaged by the Management in works such as digging, laying
cables, pole erection, replacement of damaged pole and other
maintenance works from 2004 to 2008 have approached the Authority
under the Permanent Status Act for the conferment of permanent status.
The Authority has rejected the claim of the workmen in Na.ka. No. 686
of 2010 vide order dated 20.03.2020 on the ground that they were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
involved in construction work and not entitled for permanent status
under Section 7 of the Permanent Status Act.
(2)Some of the workmen have challenged the same by filing
WP(MD) No.3775 of 2021, etc Batch and WP(MD) Nos.5972, 5974 and
5975 of 2021 before this court. This court disposed WP(MD) No.3775 of
2021, etc Batch vide order dated 11.04.2022 and held that there was no
infirmity with the order of the Inspector of Labour rejecting the
applications filed by the respondent workers. The relevant portion is
extracted as under:
“2. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble First Bench of this
Court, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the orders
passed by the Inspector of Labour declining the claim of the writ
petitioners for grant of permanent status under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.
3. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
(3)Similarly, the writ petitions in WP(MD) Nos. 5972, 5974 and
5975 were also disposed vide order dated 19.04.2022 that there was no
infirmity with the order of the Inspector of Labour.
(4)No doubt, the court in the above decisions referred to a decision
of the First Bench of this court in Superintending Engineer, Erode vs.
Inspector of Labour reported [2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1003] wherein the
matters were remanded back to the Authority for fresh determination.
However, this court has not remanded back the matters involved in this
category and has held that there is no infirmity with the orders of the
Authority under the Permanent Status Act. It appears that no writ
appeal as against the same has been filed by the workmen.
(5)In such a circumstance, the workmen have once again
approached the Inspector of Labour claiming that the matters were
remanded by this court and the impugned hearing notice was issued on
the basis of the same. Since the matter was never remanded back by this
court, the Authority under the Permanent Status Act cannot entertain the
very same claims once again.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
(6)From the materials, it also appears that the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act has gone ahead with the proceedings and has
passed orders in Na.ka. No.2055/2022 granting permanent status to the
workmen vide orders dated 13.12.2023. The Management did not take
part in the proceedings and the Inspector of Labour has passed the
orders on an incorrect basis that the matters were remanded back to the
Authority by this court.
22.In light of the above findings, WP(MD) No.29968 of 2023 filed
by the management is allowed and the impugned hearing notice is set
aside. WP (MD) No. 20477 of 2021 filed by one of the workers is
dismissed. Since the issue has already been decided by the Authority
under the Permanent Status Act and the same was also confirmed by
this court, the workmen cannot raise the very same claim again.
Therefore, the consequential orders passed by the Authority under the
Permanent Status Act in Na.ka. No. 2055/2022 dated 13.12.2023 are also
set aside. It is open to the workmen to work out their remedy as against
orders of this court whereby their writ petitions as against the orders of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
the Authority under the Permanent Status Act was dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.Insofar as WP(MD)Nos.24657 to 24662, 25234 to 25239, 25391 to
25396, 29089 of 2022; 488 to 493 of 2023; 5030 to 5046 of 2024 in the third
category listed under the caption “for clarification” is concerned, since
the previous decisions of the Division Benches of this court and the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the permanent
status conferred on the contract labourers has been brought to the
attention of this court by the learned counsels on both sides when the
other writ petitions are taken up for hearing, this court is inclined to
recall the orders passed in WP(MD) Nos.24657 to 24662 of 2022, etc batch
dated 15.09.2025 so that the issues involved in those writ petitions can
also be considered on the basis of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The Registry is directed to list the same as per roster.
Internet : Yes 30.04.2026
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(Enforcement)
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act 1981,
Virudhunagar.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Theni, Theni District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Thoothukudi – 628 101.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
Madurai – 625 016.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Dindigul.
6. The Superintending Engineer,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
7. The Assistant Engineer,
O&M,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO / Thevaram II,
Theni District.
8. Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health – I,
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishments (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act, 1981,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)Nos.16609 of 2020; 20477 of 2021;
4983, 25950 to 25954 of 2022; 29968 of 2023; 28176 of 2024;
28229, 28317, 28326, 28578, 28580, 28603, 28622, 28647, 28670, 28686,
28709, 28821 of 2025
and
WP(MD)Nos.24657 to 24662, 25234 to 25239, 25391 to 25396,
29089 of 2022; 488 to 493 of 2023; 5030 to 5046 of 2024
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
