The Management through Its General Manager Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement), Dindigul, pertaining to its proceedings in Pa.Ni.Sa.Va.No.54 of 2018 dated 27.02.2023 and quash the same.

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr .SC.Herold Singh
For R-1	: Mr.M.Mahaboof Athiff, Counsel for the State
For R-2	: Ms.S.Vijayshanthi

¶17

W.P(MD)No.1755 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Pa.Ni.Sa.Va.No.54 of 2018 dated 27.02.2023.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

¶22

second respondent was initially appointed as a Reserve Conductor on 26.11.2013 in the Reserve Crew. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 25.01.2020, he was brought under the daily wage category. His services were subsequently regularised on the basis of seniority, subject to the availability of permanent vacancies. As per Clause 8 of the proceedings dated 19.11.2013, the period spent in the Reserve Crew was taken into account for placing him under daily wage engagement. It is further submitted that, on account of his unsatisfactory performance, the period of engagement was extended. However, without 2/8

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.1755 of 2022

¶25

considering these aspects, the first respondent directed the petitioner Corporation to regularise the services of the second respondent and extend all service benefits with effect from 11.04.2016. According to the petitioner, the first respondent erroneously concluded that the second respondent had completed 480 days of continuous service during the period from 05.06.2014 to 10.04.2016, without any factual basis. It is therefore contended that the second respondent was not entitled to the benefit of permanent status under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, once the services of the second respondent had already been regularised pursuant to the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 had no jurisdiction to once again confer permanent status with retrospective effect. On the said ground, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶27

3/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.1755 of 2022

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that, admittedly, on the date when the application seeking conferment of permanent status was filed, the second respondent had not been regularised. Therefore, he was fully entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, upon completion of 480 days of continuous service. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the first respondent rendered a finding of fact granting the relief sought. Such a finding does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any perversity or patent illegality.

¶31

The learned Counsel for State appearing for the first respondent would submit that the Division Bench of this Court, in the batch of writ appeals in W.A. (MD).Nos.442 of 2025 etc., has held that where an employee is already a permanent employee, he cannot maintain a claim before the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. However, in the present case, when the second respondent

¶32

4/8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.1755 of 2022

¶35

approached the first respondent seeking conferment of permanent status, he was only a temporary employee. Therefore, the application was maintainable and was rightly entertained. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned order.

¶36

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the second respondent filed the application seeking conferment of permanent status at a point of time when his services had not been regularised. Therefore, the application was maintainable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The subsequent regularisation of his services under a settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not render the proceedings already initiated under the Act non-maintainable, nor would it divest the first respondent of the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim. The first respondent, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a finding of fact that the second respondent had completed the qualifying period of 480 days of continuous service and was

¶38

5/8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.1755 of 2022

¶41

entitled to permanent status from the date of such completion. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over such findings of fact. No perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the impugned order.

¶42

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly submitted that, though this Court may uphold the order passed by the first respondent, the second respondent is willing to waive his claim for back wages for the interregnum period. However, he seeks continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits flowing from the conferment of permanent status.

¶43

Recording the said submission, this Court makes it clear that the second respondent shall be entitled to continuity of service and all consequential service benefits arising out of the order conferring permanent status. However, he shall not be entitled to claim back wages for the period prior to the date of his regularisation.

¶44

6/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.1755 of 2022

¶47