The Superintending Engineer Vs the Presiding Officer

¶1

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶7

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Vellore.

¶11

2.P.Kasi

¶12

3.R.Govindaraj

¶13

4.S.Sekar

¶14

5.A.Ravichandran

¶15

6.G.Rajagopal

¶16

7.A.Mohan

¶17

8.A.Kandasamy

9.V.Arumugam

10.K.Karthikeyan

11.K.Ramalingam

12.V.Purusothaman

13.G.Krunagaran

14.C.Panner Selvam

15.C.Sekar

Page 1 of 13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

16.J.Vijayanand 17.R.Raman 18.R.Parasuraman 19.M.Mahavishnu 20.K.Arumugam 21.C.Karunanithi 22.A.Govindasamy 23.K.G.Selvam 24.V.Balu 25.S.Sankar 26.P.Kumar 27.R.Rajkumar 28.P.Manickam 29.G.Subramani 30.A.Annamalai 31.S.Arikrishnan 32.C.Muniyan 33.K.Vilvanathan 34.K.Sampath 35.S.Ayyan 36.P.Rajan Yesaiya 37.R.Rangan 38.K.Venkadesan 39.R.Chinnapayan 40.R.Selvakumar 41.M.Ramar 42.V.Gopinath 43.K.Kumaresan 44.S.Saravanan 45.V.Murugan 46.K.Ramu 47.R.Vijayan 48.V.Gunasekaran 49.K.Krishnan

¶28

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶29

_________ Page 2 of 13

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

50.T.Ramajayam 51.D.Sivaprakasam 52.S.Krishnan 53.K.Nadarajan 54.C.Ramachandran 55.P.Vijayakumar 56.K.Sekar 57.A.Gopinath 58.A.Arunachalam 59.M.Sakthivel 60.V.Srinivasan 61.P.Vetrivel 62.M.Gurusamy 63.M.Shanmugam 64.N.Subramanian 65.K.Pughazhendi. 66.D.Appandaraju 67.M.Shanmugam 68.U.Narayanasamy 69.G.Elumalai 70.P.Thirumal 71.V.Muthusamy 72.K.Elumalai 73.S.Natarajan 74.N.Shanmugam 75.A.Andi 76.K.Rajendiren 77.P.Chinnadurai 78.T.Elumalai 79.S.Karthikeyan 80.G.Mani 81.C.Mannarsamy 82.B.Kandeepan 83.G.Velu

¶32

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶33

_________ Page 3 of 13

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

84.S.Jayakodi 85.G.Subramanian 86.G.Vasudevan 87.K.Thanjiyappan 88.K.Chinnapaiyan 89.K.Mohanasundaram 90.MR.M.Ravichandran 91.R.Pachayappan 92.K.Venkatesan 93.K.Perumal 94.T.Velan 95.V.Subramanian 96.N.Arjunan 97.S.Jayapal 98.R.Kumar 99.N.Srinivasan 100.S.Chinasamy 101.S.Kannan 102.S.Ramakrishnan 103.K.Jayachandiran 104.K.Vijayaraj 105.S.K.Akbar Ali 106.S.Kubendiran 107.V.Elumalai 108.K.Kamaraj 109.V.Kuppusamy 110.K.Manjula 111.K.Magadevan 112.V.Vasudevan 113.K.Vellayutham 114.S.Subramanian 115.L.Chinnathambi 116.M.Kumar 117.S.Rajendran

¶36

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶37

_________ Page 4 of 13

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶40

118.M.Kanniappan 119.M.Subramanian 120.S.Jayapal 121.M.Mathan 122.P.Thirumalai 123.C.Krishnan 124.M.Murugesan 125.C.Thayalan ... Respondents

¶41

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the common award passed by the first respondent made in C.P.Nos.374 412/2003, 430 to 454 of 2003, C.P.Nos.455 to 470 of 2003, C.P.Nos.513 to 520 of 2003, C.P.Nos.522 to 527 of 2003, C.P.Nos.674 & 675 of 2003, C.P.Nos.727 to 735 of 2003, C.P.Nos.3 to 8 of 2004, C.P.Nos.41 to 48 of 2004, C.P.Nos.80 and 81 of 2004, C.P.Nos.93 to 95 of 2004 dated 15.03.2010, quash the same.

¶42

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.AGAM Legal

¶43

For Respondent : R1-Court R2, R3, R47, R51 and R73-Disd (steps due) Mr.B.Manoharan for R55 and R123 No appearance for R4, R7, R9, R10, R17, R19 to R31, R33, R35 to R46, R48, R49, R52 to R54, R56, R57, R59 to R67, R69 to R72, R74 to R106, R108 to R114,

¶44

_________ Page 5 of 13

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶47

R117 to R120, R122 to R125 No representation for R5, R6, R8, R18, R58, R68, R107, R115 an R50

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, challenging the common award dated 15.03.2010 passed by the first respondent in C.P.Nos.374 to 412 of 2003, 430 to 454 of 2003, 455 to 470 of 2003, 513 to 520 of 2003, 522 to 527 of 2003, 674 & 675 of 2003, 727 to 735 of 2003, 3 to 8 of 2004, 41 to 48 of 2004, 80 and 81 of 2004 and 93 to 95 of 2004

¶50

The short facts are that the respondents/employees were employed as contract labourers. They filed computation petitions under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming monetary benefits for difference of pay due to conferment of permanency. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration that the order passed by the Inspector of Labour, Tiruvnnamalai, has been appealed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in a batch of writ petition Nos.8224 of 1999 etc., which was

¶51

Page 6 of 13

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶54

dismissed by this Court, held that the employees are entitled for monetary benefits as that of the permanent employees. Holding so, the computation petitions were allowed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶55

This Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in W.P.Nos.19181 & 19182 of 2014 & 1323 of 2018, wherein this Court passed the following order:

¶56

9. As regards W.P.No.1323 of 2018, the prayer of the petitioners is to implement the award passed by the Labour Court dated 13.09.2010 and to make them permanent employees with all attendant benefits. There are umpteen number of orders passed on this issue. This Court vide order dated 08.09.2013 had an occasion to deal with similar issue.

¶57

10. This Court has held as follows:

¶58

41. After receiving the representations, the manner in which the same have been dealt with is nothing but an act of wilful contempt perpetrated by the respondents. When the order in W.P. No.16841/16,

¶59

_________ Page 7 of 13

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶62

etc. was passed, there was a clear direction that the order of the Inspector of Labour had become final and that the petitioners have to be given the benefit of the said order. Even after filing of W.P. No.11932 to 11937/18, for the same lis, the order passed in the earlier petitions would stand merged with the later order and, therefore, for all purposes, the direction in W.P. Nos. 11932 to 11937/18 should be read in conjunction with the order passed in W.P. No.16841/16 and not in isolation. However, isolating the order in W.P. Nos.11932 to 11937/18, the respondents have literally sat over in appeal over the orders passed by the Division Bench as well as the learned single Judge of this Court, which necessarily warrants the invocation of an action for contempt, but judicial decorum makes this Court to desist from imploding much further on this.

¶63

42. One other aspect that is to be noted here is that the Inspector of Labour had given a finding that the petitioners have worked for 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months and that finding having allowed to attain finality, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to render a

¶64

_________ Page 8 of 13

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶67

finding in the impugned order that the petitioners have not worked continuously, but intermittently and that had they been engaged regularly, they would have been identified by the Committee. Such a finding is wholly perverse, unreasonable, given the fact the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the petitions filed by the respondents against the order granting permanent status. The respondents had no authority to sit in appeal over the order passed by the Division Bench and such an order is an direct affront on the orders passed by a constitutional court. Further the act is an abhorrent act, which no constitutional court would keep silent without interfering with the same.

¶68

43. When once the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 30.08.2004 stood merged with the order of the Division Bench dated 24.10.2008, which was approved and followed in W.P. No.16841/16, etc., the only course open to the respondents is to abide by the orders passed in favour of the petitioners and accordingly grant them permanent status and the present impugned

¶69

_________ Page 9 of 13

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶72

order rejecting their claim for permanent status is wholly illegal and it definitely warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

¶73

44. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents would in no way advance the case of the respondents, as this is a clear case of violation of the orders passed by this Court, which has been bent to suit the needs of the respondents. Further, the facts in the decision relied on is in no way importable to the present case on hand and, therefore, the same does not require threadbare discussion.

¶74

45. In the result, the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed directing the respondents to accommodate the petitioners terms with the settlement u/s 18 (1) in the appropriate position befitting the nature of employment hitherto performed by them and they shall be paid corresponding scale of wages/scales, benefits in line with the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1302/2003. Orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date

¶75

_________ Page 10 of 13

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶78

of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled for any backwages or continuity of service.

¶79

11. Following the above, W.P.No.1323 of 2018 is disposed of with a direction to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation to accommodate the petitioners in terms with settlement under Section 18(1) in the appropriate position benefitting the nature of employment hitherto performed by them and they shall be paid corresponding scale of wages / scales, benefits in line with the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1302 of 2003. Orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled for any backwages or continuity of service."

¶80

Following the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation to accommodate the respondents in terms of settlement under Section 18(1) in the appropriate position benefitting the nature of employment hitherto performed by them and they shall be paid corresponding scale of wages /

¶81

Page 11 of 13

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

W.P.No.8932 of 2014

¶84

scales, benefits in line with the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1302 of 2003. Orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the respondents would not be entitled for any backwages or continuity of service. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

25.03.2025

¶86

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

¶87

To The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Vellore.

¶88

_________ Page 12 of 13

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶90

W.P.No.8932 of 2014