Eniyavan Vs Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity

2^nd respondent order of the Lr.No.119718/4452/Admn.IV/A. 2/F.C.L/2019-6, dated 03.02.2021 and quash the same as illegal and directing him to appoint the petitioner as permanent mazdoor in the respondent corporation.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request to be appointed as permanent Mazdoor in the respondent Corporation. The second respondent has rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that he has not furnished any documents to show that he has been engaged by the respondent corporation from 31.03.1995 till 05.01.2008. The second respondent has also rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the committee constituted by the respondent board for identification of the contract labourers on 08.08.1998 also has not identified the petitioner for being appointed as a permanent Mazdoor.

¶30

2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has also placed on record a Division Bench judgment of

¶31

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

¶32

2/6

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.12209 of 2022

¶34

this Court dated 08.03.2024, in the case of S.Mohan, P.Murugesan

¶35

and N.Raja Vs. The Chairman vum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in W.P.Nos.5245, 5250 & 5251 of 2020 and would submit that in identical circumstances, the case of the said petitioners were not considered by this Court and they were directed to approach the competent labour Court or such other forum as may be permissible in law to agitate their grievances.

¶36

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not furnished documents to

¶37

show that he has been engaged with the respondent as contract labourer from 31.03.1995 till 05.01.2008. Admittedly, he has also not been identified by the committee constituted by the respondent board for identification of contract labourers on 08.08.1998. Since the petitioner in the instant case is similarly placed to the petitioners in the Writ Petitions referred to supra, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had directed the said petitioners to approach the competent labour Court or such other forum as may be permissible in law to agitate their grievances, this Court is of the considered view that due to the very same reason, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition by this Court cannot be granted and the petitioner will have to be directed to approach the competent labour Court or such other forum as permissible under law to agitate their grievances.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.12209 of 2022

¶41

4.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by granting

¶42

liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent labour Court or such other forum as may be permissible in law to agitate his grievance, if he so desire. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

15.09.2025

¶44

Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR

¶45

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.12209 of 2022

¶47

To

¶48