Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Jayakodi ...R1 In Wa.No on 6 February, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
1
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 06.2.2019
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Appeal Nos.252, 254, 255, 257, 259, 269 and 270 of 2019 &
CMP.Nos.2695, 2697, 2704, 2706, 2709, 2711, 2725, 2727, 2736, 2737,
2795, 2797 and 2799 of 2019
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu
Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
No.12, Thambusamy Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
2.The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd., Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore. ...Appellants in
all the WAs
Vs
1.Jayakodi ...R1 in WA.No.
252 of 2019
2.Thirumathi Lakshmi ...R1 in WA.No.
254 of 2019
3.Mangalakshmi
4.Anjalatchi
5.Pachaiammal
6.Mary R1 to R4 in WA.No.
255 of 2019
7.C.Rani ...R1 in WA.No.
257 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
8.Chandra
9.Muthulakshmi
10.Gundukanni ...R1 to R3 in WA.
No.259 of 2019
11.Uma
12.Rani
13.Veerammal ...R1 to R3 in WA.
No.269 of 2019
14.Mayavan
15.Manickam
16.Chandra
17.Meera ...R1 to R4 in WA.
No.270 of 2019
18.The Inspector of Labour,
Cuddalore. ...R2 in WA.Nos.
252, 254 & 257 of
2019; R5 in WA.
Nos.255 & 270 of
2019; R4 in WA.
Nos.259 & 269 of
2019
APPEALS under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common
order dated 15.2.2018 in W.P.Nos.13051 to 13057 of 2013.
For TNCSC : Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss
For Inspector of Labour : Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, GA
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J) These appeals are filed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for brevity, the TNCSC) challenging the common order dated 15.2.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.13051 to 13057 of 2013. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2. The appellants filed the said writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, who exercised the powers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and directed the workmen to be regularized in service.
3. Though the TNCSC contended before the Inspector of Labour that the workmen were not in continuous employment, the Inspector of Labour took into consideration the documents filed by the workmen and found that they worked continuously for 480 days in two calendar years. Apart from that, the Inspector of Labour also took into consideration the proceedings of the Chairman and Managing Director of the TNCSC dated 16.8.2000, in which, it was stated that the casual labourers of Kancheepuram Region had been regularized in the time scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-3200 and in the post of packer and requested that the workmen were to be regularized in the same manner.
4. It appears that the Government did not take any decision in the matter and consequently, the workmen moved the Inspector of Labour. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence placed, the Inspector of Labour arrived at a factual finding that the workmen are entitled for regularization. It was pointed out that the workmen were paid bonus, incentive, festival advance, etc., which were established by marking documents. Furthermore, the Inspector of Labour took into consideration the information sent by the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Chief Information Officer dated 27.10.2011.
5. After going through the records, the Inspector of Labour gave a categorical finding that the workmen should be regularized from the date of their completion of 480 days prior to the year 2006. In the case of another set of workmen, the Inspector of Labour held that they were entitled to be regularized prior to 2009. The factual findings rendered by the Inspector of Labour were not seriously disputed by the TNCSC before the learned Single Judge.
6. The contention raised by the TNCSC before the learned Single Judge was that the workmen had not proved that they worked for a continuous period of 480 days within 24 calendar months. Though such a ground was raised, it was not substantiated by the TNCSC before the learned Single Judge by producing any evidence, which were placed before the Inspector of Labour.
7. The writ petitions were heard as a batch by the learned Single Judge and it was submitted by the learned counsel for the workmen that an identical issue was considered by this Court in W.P.Nos.27249 and 27250 of 2005 dated 16.6.2008 and that the said decision would squarely cover the case of the workmen before the learned Single Judge. This submission was not disputed by the TNCSC. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph 2 of the order, recorded the finding in the following manner :
“It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the workmen/respondents in all the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 writ petitions, who are the contesting respondents, that this case is squarely covered by judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos.27249 & 27250 of 2005 dated 16.6.2008, wherein, the contention of the petitioner challenging such order of the Labour Inspector has been rejected and the order of Labour Inspector granting permanent status has been confirmed. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.”
8. The TNCSC has not raised any contention stating that the submissions made before the learned Single Judge was either wrong or incorrect. Furthermore, there was no ground raised in these appeals that the said decision is not applicable to the case of the workmen or in any manner distinguishable.
9. The learned counsel for the TNCSC has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi [reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1] and submitted that there can be no vested right found in favour of the workmen to seek for regularization, as they were illegal appointees.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said decision, has drawn a distinction in cases where, by a process of adjudication either before the Labour Court or before the Inspector of Labour, a finding is recorded that the workmen were in continuous employment, the general rule, which is now canvassed before us, by stating that the workmen are illegal appointees cannot be canvassed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
11. As pointed out above, the appellants were not in a position to dispute any of the documents produced by the workmen before the Inspector of Labour. At best, the learned Single Judge could have considered as to whether there is any error in the decision making process by the Inspector of Labour or there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. No such ground was raised by the TNCSC in the said writ petitions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the TNCSC has not made out any case for interference in the common order dated 15.2.2018 in W.P.Nos.13051 to 13057 of 2013.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed.
06.2.2019 Internet : Yes To The Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore RS http://www.judis.nic.in 7 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS WA.No.252 of 2019 etc. cases 06.2.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in