Madras High Court
V.Gopal vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 30 July, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON :10.07.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 30.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 & 28468 of 2023
and
WMP(MD).Nos.17224 of 2022 & 24512 of 2023
WP(MD).No.23121 of 2022
1.V.Gopal
2.K.Ashokar
3.R.Anandan
4.G.Ravi
5.N.Santharam ....Petitioners
Vs
1.The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep.by its Secretary
Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Fort.St.George, Chennai -9
2.The Director
The Directorate of Town Panchayat
Rajaannamalaipuram
Chennai
3.The Management of
Palamedu Town Panchayat
Palamedu
Vadipatti-Taluk
Madurai District ….Respondents
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
WP(MD).No.28468 of 2023
The Management of
Palamedu Town Panchayat
Rep.By Executive Officer
Vadipatti Taluk
Madurai District ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The General Labour Union
(Reg.No.145/MDU)
Rep.by its General Secretary
31, Nanmai Tharuvar Kovil Arisikkara Street
Madurai 625 001
2.V.Gopal
3.K.Ashokar
4.R.Anandan
5.G.Ravi
6.N.Santharam ....Respondents
Prayer in WP(MD).No.23121 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to comply with and implement the award of the Labour Court,
Madurai dated 19.02.2020 in I.D.No.29 of 2015 and to give the petitioners
wages and other monetary and also other attendant service benefits payable to
the permanent employees from 29.04.2011 as per the award within a time
frame as may be fixed by this Court.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.28468 of 2023: This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
records relating to the impugned order in I.D.No.29 of 2015 dated 19.02.2020
on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and to quash the
same as illegal.
WP(MD).No.23121 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
: No appearance for R3
WP(MD).No.28468 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
: Mr.S.Arunachalam for R2 to R6
COMMON ORDER
WP(MD).No.23121 of 2022 has been filed by five workmen seeking a mandamus to implement the award of the Labour Court, Madurai dated 19.02.2020 in I.D.No.29 of 2015.
2.WP(MD).No.28468 of 2023 has been filed by the employer/Palamedu Town Panchayat challenging the same award of the 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 Labour Court.
3.Considering the fact that the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are tagged together and a common order is being passed.
(A)Factual Matrix:
4.Five employees namely V.Gopal, K.Ashokar, R.Anandan, G.Ravi and N.Santharam were appointed as Overhead Tank Operators in Palamedu Town Panchayat on daily/ consolidated wage basis. On completion of 480 days of services within a period of 24 months, they had approached the Labour Inspector, Madurai under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) for grant of permanent status to them. These applications came to be allowed on 05.08.2009. Challenging the said order, the Town Panchayat had preferred WP(MD).Nos.9330 to 9334 of 2009 before this Court. On 29.11.2020, this Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that a Town Panchayat cannot be considered to be an industrial establishments and therefore, the authorities under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 does not have any jurisdiction to entertain a petition for conferment of permanent status. The Town Panchayat had passed a resolution on 29.04.2011 to regularise the services of these five employees. However, the Director of the Town Panchayat had not approved the said resolution.
4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
5.The workmen through their union had raised an industrial disputes to the Conciliation Officer on 27.07.2011. A failure report was submitted on 12.03.2013. The Government of Tamil referred the matter to Labour Court invoking Section 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act.
6.The Labour Court was pleased to allow the petition with a direction to confer permanent status upon the workmen with effect from 29.04.2011. The Town Panchayat was also directed to disburse the difference in wages and monetary value of other attendant benefits with effect from the said date. A direction was issued to open service register from 29.04.2011 for taking recourse on superannuation. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petition by the Executing Officer of the Town Panchayat.
(B)Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as follows:
7.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner management submitted that the order of this Court in WP(MD).Nos. 9330 to 9334 of 2009 dated 29.11.2010 has categorically pointed out that a Town Panchayat cannot be considered to be an industrial establishment so as to attract the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. The workmen have not challenged the said judgment. However, they have chosen to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court seeking regularisation of their services which is not permissible in law. 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
8.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the management laid emphasis upon the fact that the appointments having been made based upon a resolution of the Town Panchayat, the appointments are illegal. The recruitment and appointment of Overhead Tank Operator/Pump Operator are governed by Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment ( Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistants) Rules, 1988. In such circumstances, the appointments that have been made dehors of the rules are clearly illegal in nature. When the appointment itself is illegal and void in the eye of law, neither the authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 nor the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to issue a direction to confer permanent status or regularise the services of the employees.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others) and contended that only irregular appointment made through duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts and who have have continued to work for more than 10 years of service without intervention of the order of this Court can alone be regularised. However, in the present case, the appointments are illegal in nature. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was not right in directing regularisation of services.
6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
10.The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously arrived at a finding that the Town Panchayat is an industry as contemplated under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. The supply of water to the residents of a village is a service without collecting any charges and therefore, the same can never be considered to be an industry. He had further submitted that the five employees cannot be considered to be workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He had further submitted that the provisions of I.D.Act are not applicable to the Town Panchayat, which is a statutory authority.
11.The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that when the recruitment and appointments to the post of Overhead Tank Operator/Pump Operator are governed by Statutory Service Rules, the appointments made by way of resolution of the Town Panchayat are clearly illegal in nature and by invoking labour laws, the illegal appointments cannot be regularised.
12.The learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 6 SCC 494 (Oil and Nautral Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others) was doubted by another bench of the Hon'ble Supreme 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 Court and the same has been referred to a Larger Bench. The question that has specifically been referred to is with regard to the limitation, if any, on the power of Labour and Industrial Act and order regularisation in the absence of sanctioned posts. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition filed by the Town Panchayat and to dismiss the writ petition filed by the workmen seeking implementation of the award of the Labour Court.
13.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the workmen relied upon paragraph No.143 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213 ( Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A.Rajappa) to contend that only the sovereign functions of the State authority are qualified for exemption and not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or statutory bodies. According to him, the workmen being appointed as Overhead Tank Operators and employed in the water supply section, can never be considered to fall within the sovereign function of the statutory body.
14.The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 12 SCC 775 (Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the conferment of permanent status upon the employees in a Panchayat. The Hon'ble Supreme 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 Court was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Labour Court.
15.The learned counsel for the respondent had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 ( Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) and contended that wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organisation's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards, but also exposes the organisation to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. He further pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct the employer namely, Central Water Commission to regularise the services. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 (Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others) and submitted that the plea of regularisation by 'Accounts Clerk' working in the railway department was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was pleased to confirm the order of regularisation.
16.He had further pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the judgment in Umadevi's case also. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 (Shripal and another 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. The learned counsel further pointed out that by way of proceedings dated 15.10.2008, the Executing Officer of Town Panchayat has addressed a communication to the Inspector of Madurai pointing out the extent of service rendered by the concerned workmen. The same would clearly indicate that all the employees were appointed through a resolution of the Town Panchayat and they were paid daily wages or consolidated monthly wages.
17.The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that even as per Rules cited by the Additional Advocate General, the only qualification that is required for being appointed as Overhead Tank Operator is that the candidate should be able to read and write in Tamil. He had further contended that the appointing authority is only the Executing Authority of the Town Panchayat. In the present case, the petitioner having been appointed through the resolution of the Town Panchayat, the same cannot be found fault with. He further submitted that the only defect that could be pointed out is that their names were not sponsored by the employment exchange. The petitioners have put in service several years in the last grade. At this length of time, the said defect cannot be pointed out against the employees. He had further submitted that the work is permanent in nature and is also continuous and not 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 seasonable. In such circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly directed regularisation of services. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition filed by the management and to allow the writ petition filed by the employees to implement the award of the Labour Court.
18.Heard both sides and perused the material records. (C)Discussion:
19.The award of the Labour Court directing regularisation of the Overhead Tank Operator working in the Town Panchayat is being challenged by the State primarily on the ground that the initial appointment of those employees were dehors of the Service Rules and the Town Panchayat will not fall under the definition of an industrial establishment under Section 2(k)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. As far as the plea relating to the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act with regard to a local body is concerned, the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would throw light upon the said submissions.
20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2015) 12 SCC 775 (Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others) had an occasion to consider an order passed by the Labour Court wherein safai kamdars (sanitary workers) employed in a Grama Panchayat were granted regularisation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to uphold the award of the Labour Court. Therefore, there cannot be 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 any dispute with regard to the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to employees of a local body.
21.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner Town Panchayat had also raised a contention that the post of Overhead Tank Operator is governed by Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistant) Rules 1988. However, the appointments were made by the resolution passed by the Panchayat and not by the appointing authority. Therefore, the appointment of the employees can only be branded as an illegal appointment. Hence, they are clearly in violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others).
22.We have to consider the interplay between the service rules governing the appointment of these employees and various labour legislations.
23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2015) 6 SCC 321 (Ajaypal Singh Vs.Haryana Warehousing Corporation) in Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 has held as follows:
22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of "retrenchment" on the ground that the initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 Constitution of India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment on such ground, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted and thereby workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and other benefits in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
23. However, in other cases, when no such plea is taken by the employer in the order of retrenchment that the workman was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or in violation of any statutory rule or his appointment was a backdoor appointment, while granting relief, the employer cannot take a plea that initial appointment was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in absence of a reference made by the appropriate Government for determination of question whether the initial appointment of the workman was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or statutory rules.
Only if such reference is made, a workman is required to lead evidence to prove that he was appointed by following procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial appointment was legal.”
24.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2015) 6 SCC 494 (Oil and Nautral Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others) in Paragraph No.27 has held as follows:
“27.The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Act referred the existing Industrial Dispute between the workmen concerned and the Corporation to the Tribunal which rightly adjudicated point (i) of the dispute (supra) 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and passed an award dated 26.5.1999 directing the Corporation that the services of the workmen concerned should be regularised with effect from the date on which all of them completed 480 days, subsequent to their appointment by the memorandum of appointment. The contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the Tribunal has no power to pass such an award compelling the Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen concerned is wholly untenable in law....”
25.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana) in Paragraph No.32 to 36 has held as follows:
“32.The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and the affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
33.The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in the case of Umadevi1. As a matter of fact, the issue 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 like the present one pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as provided in item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 of the Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Bench.
34.It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. arising out of industrial adjudication has been considered in Umadevi1 and that decision has been held to be not laying down the correct law but a careful and complete reading of decision in Umadevi leaves no manner of doubt that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi was the exercise of power by the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the matters of public employment where the employees have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based on proper selection as recognized by the rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularization and conferring them status of permanency have been passed.
35.Umadevi is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.15/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
36.Umadevi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exists. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is established. “
26.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 ( Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) in Paragraph No.26 has held as follows:
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 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 adherence to procedural formalities.Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (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.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 (Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad) while considering the claim of a Gardener in the Horticulture Department of Ghaziabad in Paragraph No.17 has held as follows:
“17.In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
28.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Town Panchayat had relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.02.2020 in Civil Appeal No.1878 of 2016 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the decision rendered in (2015) 6 SCC 494 to a Larger Bench in order to consider the limitation, if any, on the power of Labour and Industrial Courts to order regularisation in the absence of sanctioned post.
29.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2012) 11 SCC 321 (Ashok Sadarangani and another Vs. Union of India and others) in Paragraph No.29 has held as follows:
“29.As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh's case, the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gian Singh case need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.”
30.It is settled position of law that during the pendency of a reference to a Larger Bench, the law laid down by the previous Bench continue to hold the field until they are modified or altered by the Larger Bench. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to consider the facts of the present case in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are binding 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 upon this Court as on today.
31.A Cumulative reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the following principles of law are reached.
a)The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi case cannot be held to have overridden the power of Industrial Court in passing appropriate orders for regularisation of service once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item No.6 of the schedule 4 is established.
b)The Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the employees of the local bodies also, when the plea of unfair labour practice is established.
c)Though it is open to an employer to retrench an employee on the ground that the initial appointment of workmen is not in conformity with the statutory rules, such a plea can be raised by an employer, only if a reference has been made by the appropriate Government for determination of such a question whether the initial appointment of workmen was in violation of the statutory rules.
d)When the State has referred a dispute under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act and an award has been passed by the Labour Court directing the employer to regularise the services on completion of 480 days, the employer cannot contend that the Labour Court has 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 no power to pass such an award.
e)Citing Umadevi case, the Government department cannot contend that no vested right to regularisation exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.
f)Though the concern of the employer relating to non-compliance of recruitment rules merit consideration, the same cannot override the legitimate right of the workmen who have served continuously.
32.In the present case, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O(D).No.92 dated 02.03.2015 under Section 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(d) of I.D.Act for adjudication whether the demand of the Labour Union to make permanent of the services of five employees is justified. Obviously there is no reference by the Government to the effect whether the initial appointment of these employees are in violation of the statutory service rules or not. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the initial appointment of these employees were illegal and the appointment is dehors of the statutory service rules cannot be countenanced, in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra.
33. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the workmen, the only educational qualification that is required for being 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 appointed as Overhead Tank Operator is that a candidate should be able to read and write in Tamil. The workmen have been appointed through a resolution passed by the Town Panchayat. Except the fact that the workmen have not been sponsored through Employment Exchange, no other defect in the recruitment process has been pointed out by the employer. Therefore, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions cited supra, the appointment could be treated only as irregular and not as illegal.
34.In the light of the above said deliberations, this Court passes the following orders:
a)WP(MD).No.28468 of 2023 stands dismissed.
b)WP(MD).No.23121 of 2022 stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to implement the order of Labour Court, Madurai dated 19.02.2020 in I.D.No.29 of 2015 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.07.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
21/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu
Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Fort.St.George, Chennai -9
2.The Director The Directorate of Town Panchayat Rajaannamalaipuram Chennai
3.The Executive Officer The Management of Palamedu Town Panchayat Vadipatti Taluk Madurai District
4.The Section Officer V.R.Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai 22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 and 28468 of 2023 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.23121 of 2022 &
28468 of 2023 and
WMP(MD).Nos.17224 of 2022
& 24512 of 2023
30.07.2025
23/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 04:41:12 pm )