Madras High Court
K.Sakthivel vs Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution ... on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 25.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
1. K.Sakthivel,
S/o. Kaliappan,
Karuppiah Muppanar Nagar,
Kaliamman Koil Backside,
Mettur Dam.
2. R.Suresh Kumar,
S/o. Rajendran,
2-G-55, New Colony,
Mettur Dam – 1.
3. M.Chelladurai,
S/o. Marimuthu
4G/15A Workshop Colony,
Mettur Dam – 1
4. P.Eswaran,
S/o. Palani,
8/97, Achangadu,
Moolakedu Post,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District – 636 452. …Petitioners
Vs.
1. Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
Rep. by Chairman & Managing Director,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
3. Mettur Workshop Circle,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
Mettur Dam.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
Thiruchengode Road,
Namakkal.
5. The Superintending Engineer,
Erode Generation Circle,
Oorachikkottai,
Bhavani Taluk,
Erode – 638 302. …Respondents
Prayer in W.P.
To issue appropriate Writs, Orders and Directions and in particular issue a
Writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records
pertaining to quash the orders passe by the 1st respondent dated 02.05.2013 in
Memo no. 101135/584/G56/G562/2010-7, No.101135/584/G56/G562/2010-09,
No.101135/584/G56/G562/2010-10 and No.101135/584/G56/G562/2010-11, in
so far giving the petitioners permanent status and notional fixation of pay only
from 22.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 and not giving the petitioners the same from
the date of completion of 480 days of service, Quash the same and for a
consequently direct the Respondents to give us permanent status, scale of pay
2/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
and pay fixation as applicable to permanent sweepers with effect from the date
of completion of 480 days of service notionally and with periodical pay
revisions and increments up to 22.11.2011 / 23/11/2011 and to pay the
petitioners all arrears and other monetary and consequential benefits for the
period from 23.11.2011 / 24/11/2011 based on such pay fixation, by extending
us the benefit of the award dated 26.11.2015 in I.D.No. 96/2013, Award costs
and thus render justice.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioners : Mr.Ajoy Khose, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan, Advocate
For M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, whereby the said officer informed them that they were not entitled to claim back wages, though they would be extended all attendant benefits with effect from 22.11.2011 in the pay band of Rs. 5,460–20,200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 1,910, pursuant to the fixation of pay. The petitioners 3/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 contend that they are similarly situated to one V. Vasu, who had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 96 of 2013, which culminated in an award dated 26.11.2015 granting relief. It is their case that they are equally entitled to the same benefits as were extended to the said V. Vasu.
3.It is seen that the four petitioners, along with three other similarly placed part-time conservancy workers, approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Salem, seeking conferment of permanent status on the ground that they had each completed 480 days of service within a period of 24 calendar months and were therefore entitled to be made permanent in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. After issuing notice to TANGEDCO and considering the matter, the said authority passed an order dated 27.09.2002, directing as follows:-
@nkw;go kDjhuu;fs; ,e;epWtd bjhHpw;rhiyapy; gzpapy; nru;e;j ehs; Kjy; bjhlu;e;J 24 khj';fspy; 480 ehl;fs; bjhlu; gzp g[upe;jJ Fwpj;J rku;g;gpf;f Mtz';fs; K:yk; epUg: pj;Js;sdu;. Vjpu;kDjhuUk; nkw;go bjhHpyhsu;fs; 480 ehl;fs; gzpg[upe;jij kWf;ftpy;iy/ Mdhy; gzp epue;juk; bra;a thupaj;jpwF ; Kd;bkhHpt[ bra;ag;gl;ljhft[k;. Miz fpilj;j gpd;g[ gzp epue;juk; bra;ag;gLtjhf bjuptpj;jdu;/ Mdhy; vg;nghJ bra;ag;gLk; vd mtuhy; Tw ,aytpy;iy/ kDjhuu;fs; gl;oaypy; Fwpg;gpl;lgo gzpapy; nru;e;j bjhlu; gzp g[upe;Js;shu;fs; vd;w epiyapy;4/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 ,tu;fSf;F Kd;djhf epue;juj; jFjp tH';fg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ vdnt vjpu;kDjhuupd; gjpy; Vw;gToajhf ,y;iy/ vdnt jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; epWtd';fs; (gzpahsu;fSf;fF epue;ju jFjp tH';Fjy;) rl;lk; 1981 gpupt[ 3(1) y; Fwpgg; pll; go nkwfz;l kDjhuu;fs; 7 egu;fSk; bjhHpw;rhiyapy; 24 fhyz;lu; khj';fspy; 480 ehl;fSf;F nky; gzpg[upe;jpUg;gjhy; gzp epue;ju jFjp tH';fg;gl ntz;Lk; vd;gjpy; ve;jtpj IaKk; ,y;iy/ vdnt jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; epWtd';fs; (gzpahsu;fSf;fF epue;ju jFjp tH';Fjy;) rl;lk; 1981 gpupt[ 5 tpjp 3 kw;Wk; 6(4) y; nryk;. bjhHpwr; hiyfs; Jizj; jiyik Ma;thsu; mtu;fSf;F mspf;fg;gl;l mjpfhuj;jpd;go nkw;fz;l kDjhuu;fs; 7 egu;fisa[k; epue;juk; jFjp bgw jFjpahdtu;fs; vdf; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L mtu;fs; midtUf;Fk; gl;oay; 1y; Fwpgg; pll; gzpapy; nru;e;j ehspy; ,Ue;J 480 ehl;fs; gzpKoj;j md;W epue;ju jFjp tH';fpl ntz;Lk; vd;W ,jd; K:yk;
vjpu;kDjhuUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/
gl;oay; ? 1
t/ bgau; gzpapy;
vz;/ nru;e;j ehs;
1 rp/rjhrptk;. j-bg tp/rpd;Drhkp 07021997
2-299 bghd; efu;. nkl;Lu; miz?1
2 gp/<!;tud; j-bg gHdp 10111995
4-91 mr;rwfhL. Kay;fhL m";ry;. nkl;Lu;
tl;lk;
3 nfh/rf;jpnty; j-bg fhspag;gd; 11281996
2?2?v?gpnsd; fUg;igah K:g;gdhu; efu;.
nkl;Lu; miz?1
4 tP/thR j-bg tPud; tPud;. 6V ? 3v?51. 08021993
J}f;fdhk;gl;o. vk;/vk;/rp/ fhydp.
gl;lr;rhiy. nkl;Lu; miz
5 bgh/tontY j-bg bghd;Drhkp 10041996
vg;/24 iyd;/ nkl;Lu; miz
6 kh/bry;yJiu j-bg khupKj;J 10021997
163-114 V. fhspjh!; efu;. nryk; nfk;g;
nkl;Lu; miz
5/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
7 eh/Rnu!;Fkhu; j-bg uhn$e;jpud; 10091995
fhntup efu;. nkl;Lu; miz?1
4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, TANGEDCO filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5930 of 2003, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court with the following order:
“This writ petition is covered by my order dated 9-12-2003 in W.P.Nos. 17692 of 1999 etc., wherein I have given certain directions while dismissing the said writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The said order would hold good for this Writ Petition also. Accordingly, by following my above said order, this writ petition is also disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.”
5.In the aforesaid order, the learned Judge issued directions consistent with those rendered in an earlier batch of cases commencing with W.P. No. 17692 of 1999 and connected matters, decided on 09.12.2003. As the directions issued therein are identical and applicable to the present respondents as well, it becomes necessary to extract the relevant findings and directions from that batch of cases, which govern the present matter also:
“In this background of the fact situation, when the Inspector of Labour was called upon to exercise his powers under Section 5 of 6/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 the Act read with Rule 6(4), the Board cannot expect the authority to close the proceedings by holding that irrespective of the indifferent attitude displayed by the Board before the Authority, the concerned workmen cannot be conferred with the permanent status. Therefore, when the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the authority mis-understood the power vested in him while passing the impugned order is considered, it can only be said that the exercise of powers and duties conferred on the Inspector of Labour under Section 5 read along with Rule 6(4) he was fully empowered the pass appropriate orders in fulfillment of the object of the Act, when the necessary materials for achieving the same were placed before him. If the various ingredients of Section 5 of the Act is looked into, I find that the Inspector of Labour has been invested with the necessary power to inspect any industrial establishments and apart from examining the relevant registers and records can also record the evidence of such persons as he may deem it necessary either in the establishment itself or elsewhere for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Act. Section 5(c) of the Act also states that the Inspector can exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Therefore, a reading of Section 5 on the whole makes it clear that the Inspector of Labour who exercise his powers contained therein should exercise such powers in such a way that the purpose of the enactment is fulfilled, and not defeat such purpose even if any such attempt is made by any party. When such is the pre-dominent idea behind the investing of the power with the Inspector of Labour under Section 5 of the Act, I am afraid that the Board can decline to avail the opportunity afforded to it when the concerned workmen moved the Inspector of Labour to hold an enquiry in order to examine whether or not they are to be conferred with the permanent status by virtue of their continued employment, but still the Inspector of Labour should refrain himself from exercising his powers and reject the application of the workmen.” “Therefore, applying the said ratio to the case on hand, it can be safely held that the concerned workmen here were placed in a better footing when they chose to straightaway move the Inspector of Labour under the Act, in as much as according to the 7/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 workmen, having regard to the facts prevailing as on date, they were entitled for the conferment of permanent status as provided under the Act. If such a claim of the workmen was not factually maintainable, it was for the Board to have resisted the said claim with all available materials and could have convinced the Inspector of Labour as the claim ought not to have been countenanced. The Board having miserably failed to perform its duties in the manner expected of it, it cannot be now allowed to contend or complain against the powers exercised by the Inspector of Labour which was within the provisions of the Act. ” “At best, the submission made on behalf of the Board that the rights of the workmen can be worked out under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, can reasonably stated to be acceptable to the extent that when such conferment of permanent status is ordered, such permanent status can be at a level which according to the Board that was in existence as on the date as claimed by the workmen and that if any controversy should arise on the stand of the Board while conferring permanent status as directed by the Inspector of Labour and in the event of any necessity arising for determining such a controversy, either the Board or the workmen may have to work out their remedy by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Certainly, the submission made on behalf of the Board cannot whittle down the very exercise of power available to the Inspector of Labour under the provisions of the Act and the power having been thus exercised as per the orders impugned in these writ petitions.” “…it will have to be held that the conferment of permanent status which has been directed to be accorded by the orders impugned in the writ petitions can only be taken to mean that the status of the concerned workmen which were hitherto a nebulous one would become a permanent one with the petitioner / Board. The question whether such a conferment of permanent status would entitle the concerned workmen to claim regularisation in a 8/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 particular category in the services of the petitioner/ Board requires further consideration by the Board. I am of the view that while the conferment of permanent status would ensure to the concerned workmen their permanent employment with the petitioner/board, in what category or post in which they are to be regularised is a matter which will have to be worked out by the petitioner / board by passing appropriate orders. The conferment of permanent status in the services of the Board in the appropriate position befitting the nature of employment hitherto performed by the concerned workmen as ordered by the Inspector of labour should be appropriately made by the Board. Inasmuch as the Inspector of Labour having crystallised the position that the concerned workmen have acquired the status of permanency in the employment of the petitioner / Board, the consequential details of such permanent status will have to be specified by the petitioner Board by issuing appropriate proceedings. In other words, the petitioner Board will have to pass appropriate orders relating to the concerned workmen be in any existing category of employment or by virtue of the nature of jobs hitherto performed by them, they are to be fitted in any other post with the corresponding scale of wages/scales/etc. and the other benefits available to them to be prescribed by the petitioner Board. In the event of such proceedings issued by the petitioner / Board creating any controversy or dispute by the concerned workmen therefor the said issue may have to be appropriately thrashed out in the manner known to law. Having regard to the positive directions issued by the Inspector of Labour, it is incombent on the part of the petitioner / Board to pass appropriate proceedings conferring permanent status to the concerned workmen in accordance with law.” [Emphasis added]
6.Following the disposal of the writ petition, it is stated that TANGEDCO preferred a writ appeal and also filed an application to condone 9/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 the delay. However, the appeal was not pursued thereafter, and more than eleven years have since elapsed. The status of the said defective writ appeal has been set out in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by TANGEDCO, which reads as follows:
“I state that the said order was dated 27.02.2002, it was challenged by the Respondent, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and a Writ Appeal was also filed, with a delay and notice has been ordered by this Hon’ble Court. I state that had the Petitioners immediately after the impugned order passed in 2011 approached this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent would have pursued the Writ Appeal.”
7.Even while the writ petition filed by TANGEDCO in W.P. No. 5930 of 2003, challenging the order conferring permanent status, was pending, the seven workmen covered under the said order—including the four petitioners herein—filed individual claim petitions before the Labour Court, Salem, being C.P. Nos. 78 to 84 of 2003, seeking back wages consequent to the conferment of permanent status. Upon issuance of notice to TANGEDCO and after hearing the parties, the Labour Court passed a common order dated 30.06.2004, granting back wages to all seven workers, including the present petitioners. The relevant findings recorded by the Labour Court in paragraphs 10, 12, and 13 are as follows:10/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 @10///bjhHpwr; hiy Jiz jiyik Ma;thsu; kDjhuu;fSf;F epue;ju me;j!;J tH';f cj;jputpl;lij vjpu;j;J khz;g[kpF brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; upl; kD jhf;fy; bra;jpUe;jJ/ me;j upl; kDt[k; jw;nghJ js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ me;j upl; kDtpy; Vw;gl;l cj;jput[fF ; vjpuhf vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; upl; mg;gPy; bra;Js;sjhf bjupfpwJ/ khz;gk[ pF brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; cj;jput[fF ; Vw;g bjhHpw;rhiy Jizj; jiyik Ma;thsUila cj;jput[ mky;gLj;jf;ToajhFk;/ bjhHpw;rhiy Jiz jiyik Ma;thsUila cj;jput[gg; o kDjhuu;fs; ,e;j kDf;fis jhf;fy; bra;Js;shu;fs;/ bjhHpwr; hiy Jiz jiyik Ma;thsu; gpwg;gpj;j cj;jput[ ePjpkd;wj;jhy; uj;J bra;ag;glhj tiu me;j cj;jputpd; mog;gilapy; kDjhuu;fs; rk;gs ghf;fpia nfl;f cupik cz;L/ vdnt upl; mg;gPy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L epYitapy; ,Ug;gjhy; mjpy; gpwg;gpf;fg;Lk; cj;jput[fF ;
,e;j cj;jput[ cl;gl;ljhFk;/ mJtiuapy; kDjhuu;fs; kDf;fspy; Fwpg;gplL; s;s bjhifia nfl;gjw;F cupik cs;sjhYk; me;j bjhif rk;ge;jkhf g{ry; ,y;iy vd;gjhYk; vjpu;kDjhuu; me;j bjhiffis bfhLf;f flikg;gl;Ls;shu;/@ @12/nkny Twg;gl;l fhuz';fshy; kDjhuu;fs; nfhupago gupfhuk; fpilf;ff;ToaJ vd;Wk; kDjhuu;fs; Fwpg;gpl;l bjhif rk;ge;jkhf g{ry; ,y;yhjjhy; bjhHpwr; hiy Jiz jiyik Ma;thsUila cj;jut[g;go kDjhuu;fs; ,e;j bjhifia nfl;Ls;sjhy; kDjhuu;fs; nfhupago vjpu;kDjhuu; bjhif bfhLf;f flikg;gl;ltu; vd;Wk; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ/ bjhHpwr; hiy Jiz jiyik Ma;thsUila cj;jput[f;F vjpuhf jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l upl; kD js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mij vjpu;jJ ; mg;gPy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhf Twg;gLfpwJ/ xUntis upl; mg;gPy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhy; me;j mg;gPypy; Vw;gLk; cj;jput[fF ;
cl;gl;L vjpu;kDjhuu; nkw;go bjhifia bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;fz;lthW gpur;ridfSf;F tpil mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ 13/fzf;fPlL ; kDf;fs; 78-03. 79-03. 80-03. 81-03. 82-03. 83-03 & 84-03 Kothf kDf;fs; mDkjpf;fg;gLfpd;wd f/k/ 78-03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/1.90.568-?Ia[k;. f/k/ 79-03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/2.34.198-?Ia[k;. f/k/ 80- 03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/1.37.490-?Ia[k;. f/k/81-03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/1.90.422-?Ia[k;. f/k/ 82-03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/1.56.694-?Ia[k;. f/k/ 83- 03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/1.48.769-?Ia[k; f/k/84-03d; kDjhuUf;F U:/1.61.099-?11/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 Ia[k; vjpuk; Djhuu; khz;gk[ pF brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s upl; mg;gPypy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; cj;jput[fF ; l;gl;L tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[jb; jhif ,y;iy/@
8.Aggrieved by the common order of the Labour Court, TANGEDCO filed seven seperate writ petitions challenging the individual claim petitions allowed in favour of the workmen, including those filed by the present petitioners. The details of the workmen, corresponding claim petition numbers, and the writ petitions filed before this Court are set out in the following table:-
S.No. Name of the worker C.P.No. W.P.No. 1 P.Vadivelu 84/03 3047/2006 2 M.Chelladurai 83/03 3048/2006 (3rd petitioner in the present WP) 3 K.Sakthivel 82/03 3049/2006 (1st petitioner in the present WP) 4 P.Easwaran 81/03 5114/2006 (4th petitioner in the present WP) 5 C.Sadhasivam 80/03 5115/2006 6 V.Vasu 79/03 5116/2006 (on whose behalf I.D. was raised) 7 R.Suresh Kumar 78/03 37720/2005 (2nd petitioner in the present WP)
9.The aforesaid seven writ petitions were heard in two separate batches 12/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 and were disposed of by two common orders dated 22.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 respectively. In the said common orders, this Court held as follows:
“These Writ Petitions are filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as against the order of the Labour Court dated 30.6.2004, by which the Labour Court granted the monetary benefits payable to the contract labourers and direct the petitioner herein to pay the same subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. It is seen from the typed set of papers that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petitions, on the basis of the orders passed in the Writ Appeals filed earlier and that of the Apex Court, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board passed a proceeding dated 02.08.2011, wherein it is stated that in accordance with the directions of this Court and the Supreme Court, 3316 and 2330 number of posts of part-time conservancy workers were created with retrospective effect from 04.04.2003 and 15.10.2005 respectively; to grant regular time scale of pay with D.A. with retrospective effect from
4.4.2003 as per the eligibility / entitlement and to pay the arrears to them.
3.In the light of the above-said proceedings thus made, the first respondent in each Writ Petition has filed their counter affidavit before this Court wherein they have given their undertaking that they would forego their backwages in the event of they being given permanency of their appointment as per the order dated 30.6.2004 I C.P.Nos.82 to 84 of 2003 passed by the Labour Court. The first respondent in each Writ Petition has stated that it would be sufficient if they are given permanent status of their employment. It is stated that the first respondent’s name have been included in the list of permanency under the proceedings of the Board dated 02.08.2011.
4. In the light of the above circumstances and in the light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and this Court, learned counsel 13/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 appearing for the first respondent in each Writ Petition submits that the Writ Petitions may be disposed of with the above-said observation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the above-said facts. Hence, taking note of the circumstances as detailed in the above-said Board circular dated 02.08.2011 as well as the undertaking given by the first respondent in each Writ Petition that they would not insist on for backwages in the event of they being given permanent status of their employment, the above Writ Petitions are closed with a direction to the petitioner herein to pass orders with reference to the permanent status of the employment of the first respondent in the each of the above Writ Petitions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Consequently, WPMP Nos. 3157, 3159 and 3161 of 2006 are also closed.”
10.Prior to the pronouncement of the decisions referred to above, the four petitioners herein submitted identical letters dated 19.07.2011 to the 3rd respondent, expressing their willingness to forgo their claim for back wages, subject to the condition that they be granted permanency as full-time conservancy workers. The contents of one such letter, submitted by M. Chelladurai (the 3rd petitioner herein), are as follows:-
@ehd; Jg;g[ut[ gzpahsuhf KG neu gzpahsuhf gzpg[uptij mog;gilahf bfhz;Lk;. bjhHpyhsu; ePjpkd;wk;-nryk; cj;jput[ ehs; 30/06/2004 C.P.No.83-2003?d; cj;jput[go gzp epue;ju me;j!;J tH';fplt[k;. mt;thW gzpepue;ju me;j!;J tH';fpdhy; ehd; gpd; rk;gsk; nfhu khl;nld; vd cWjpaspg;gJld; vdf;F gzp epue;ju me;j!;J kl;Lk; tH';fpdhy; nghJkhdJ vd ,jd; K:yk; cWjpaspf;fpnwd;/@ 14/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
11.Although the petitioners were earlier appointed to the temporary post of part-time conservancy worker by order dated 31.05.2012, the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Judge in respect of these petitioners, issued the impugned orders dated 02.05.2013. It is considered necessary to reproduce one such impugned order in its entirety for proper appreciation:-
“The orders issued to Thiru M.Chelladurai, Part time conservancy workers under reference 1st cited is hereby cancelled.
2.The Labour Court, Chennai has passed common order dated 30.06.04 in C.P.Nos. 79/2003 to 84/2003 has granted the monetary benefits payable to work contract labourers. Challenging the order, the Board has filed W.P.No.3047/2006 to 3049/2006, W.P.Nos.5114/2006, 5116/2006 and W.P.No.3772020/05. The Hon’ble High Court Madras by common order dated 22.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 has modified the Labour Court award and directed the Board to give permanent status of his employment.
3. As per the Hon’ble High Court / Madras Judgment Orders dated 22.11.2011 & 23.11.2011, Thiru. V.Vasu Part Time Conservancy Worker is hereby absorbed and appointed as Sweeper in TANGEDCO and posted to the office of the Superintending Engineer / Salem EDC / Salem in the existing vacancy.
4. Further, Thiru M.Chelladurai, Part Time Conservancy Worker is informed that he is not eligible to claim for backwages but eligible for all attendant benefits with effect from 22.11.2011 in the pay band of Rs.5460-20200+1900 Grade Pay consequent on the fixation of pay.15/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
5. He is directed to get the reposting order from the Superintending Engineer / Mettur Workshop / Mettur Dam” [Emphasis added]
12.Although all seven workers, including the four writ petitioners herein, had filed claim petitions before the Labour Court, and TANGEDCO had challenged those orders by filing seven writ petitions which were disposed of by two common orders dated 22.11.2011 and 23.11.2011, it is only in the case of V. Vasu that the order expressly states he was absorbed as a full-time sweeper, as seen in the underlined portion of the order referred to above. Interestingly, the said order itself refers to the same common judgments dated 22.11.2011 and 23.11.2011, wherein no distinction was made among the seven workers. Furthermore, all four writ petitioners had individually submitted letters consenting to forgo back wages, explicitly stating that such concession was conditional upon the Board agreeing to appoint them as permanent workers.
13.However, the trade union affiliated with the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) espoused the cause of V. Vasu and raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, demanding that he be 16/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 appointed as a full-time conservancy worker and be paid wages and benefits on par with full-time employees. The Government, by G.O. (D) No. 359, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2013, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Salem. The terms of reference issued by the Government were to determine whether the demand for making V. Vasu, a part- time conservancy worker, a full-time conservancy worker and for payment of wages and other allowances accordingly was justified.
14.The said dispute was taken on file by the Labour Court, Salem, as I.D. No. 96 of 2013. Upon hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court, in paragraph 19 of its award, held as follows:-
@19/nkYk; ep/rh/M/1. ep/rh/M/2 cau;ePjpkd;w jPug; ;g[fis guprPypf;Fk;nghJ me;j tHf;Ffspy; fz;l kDjhuu;fs; j';fsJ gzp epue;jug;gLj;jg;gLk; gl;rj;jpy; gpdr; k;gsk; nfhUtjpy;iy vd;W ePjpkd;wj;jpy; xg;gf[ ;bfhz;ljhy; kDjhuupd; gzp epue;jug;gLj;Jjy; bjhlu;ghd cj;juit MW thu';fSf;Fs; gpwg;gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdpDk; brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;j njjpapypUe;J MW thu';fSf;Fs; vjpu;kDjhuu; thupaj;jhy; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gjhy; @jpU/tP/thR vd;w gFjp neu epue;ju Jg;g[utg;[ gzpahsUf;fhd Cjpak; cs;spll; rYiffs; tH';f ntz;Lbkd;w bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhupf;if epahakhdJ vd;Wk;. thupaj;jpd; Kiwaw;w 11/6/2011 njjpapll; cj;jut[ uj;J bra;ag;gl;L gzp epue;ju me;j!;Jf;Fupa Cjpak; cs;spl;l ,ju rYiffSk; 1/5/98 Kjy; fzf;fpl;L Cjpa epYitiaa[k;. gjtp cau;ita[k; vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; ,e;j vGtpdhtpwF ; tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,Wjpahf @jpU/tP/thR vd;w gFjp neu epue;ju Jg;g[ut[g;17/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 gzpahsUf;fhd Cjpak; cs;spl;l rYififs; tH';f ntz;Lbkd;w bjhHpwr; ';fj;jpd; nfhupf;if epahakhdJ vd;Wk; thupaj;jpd; Kiwaw;w 11/6/2011 njjpapll; cj;jut[ uj;J bra;J mtUf;F gzp epue;ju me;j!;Jf;Fupa Cjpak; cs;spl;l ,ju rYiffis 1/5/98 Kjy; fzf;fplL ; ,d;wpypUe;J 3 khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; Cjpa epYitiaa[k; gjtp cau;ita[k; vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutplL ; ,e;j kD mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j; bjhif ,y;iy/@
15.Aggrieved by the said award, TANGEDCO filed W.P. No. 9743 of 2017 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.11.2022, whereby the award was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. The relevant observations made in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the said order are as follows:-
“4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the above orders, and the undertaking given by the employee Mr.Vasu, made a submission that the said undertaking and the order of the High Court was not considered by the Labour Court, despite the fact that it was marked as an Exhibit.
5.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the order dated
11.06.2012 passed by the writ petitioner/TANGEDCO, which was set aside by the Labour Court was already cancelled by the TANGEDCO authorities themselves.
6. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent/Union made a submission that the said order dated 11.06.2012 was modified by the competent authorities.
7. May that as it be. This Court is of the considered opinion that these issues were not adjudicated elaborately by the Labour Court and the order of the High Court, which was marked as a document, 18/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 was also not considered and there is no finding in the award. These documents are vital, which requires an adjudication between the parties and a finding is to be given. Whether the workman has given an undertaking, the effect of undertaking and also the extent to which the undertaking is given, all to be considered by the Labour Court by way of an adjudication. In the absence of adjudicating these disputed issues, this Court is unable to form an opinion, more specifically, with reference to the undertaking and the orders of the Court as well as the order dated 11.06.2012, which was modified by the Petitioner/TANGEDCO.
8. For all these reasons, the matter is to be remitted back for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the award dated 26.11.2015 passed in I.D.No.96 of 2013 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Salem for fresh adjudication. The parties are at liberty to file their respective additional documents or evidences and the Labour Court shall adjudicate the issues on merits and by affording opportunity to all the parties concerned and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
16.Learned counsel for the petitioner workmen brought to the attention of this Court that, pursuant to the remand, the Labour Court, Salem has passed a fresh award in I.D. No. 96 of 2013 dated 22.08.2024. Upon reconsideration, the Labour Court adjudicated the issue in favour of the union which had raised the dispute and granted relief to V. Vasu, who is stated to be similarly placed as the petitioners herein. In the said award dated 22.08.2024, the Labour Court, in paragraphs 56 to 58, held as follows:
19/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 “56. Based on the above mentioned discussions, this court is of the view that the said Vasu who had worked for more than 480 days in 24 calendar months and he has to be given permanent status of employment since from the date of his appointment as per Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Establishments ( Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981. Since the respondent did not comply the order of the Hon'ble High Court by granting permanent status to the said Vasu within time frame of six weeks as per Ex.M.4, M.5 orders Ex.M.7 undertaking given by Vasu by foregoing the back-wages become non-est in law.
57.Hence it is decided that the claim of petitioner union that Mr.V.Vasu who is the part time Scavenger has to be appointed as full time permanent conservancy worker / sweeper and to be given the salary and other benefits of full time permanent conservancy worker / sweeper is lawful and respondent can be directed to recognize Vasu as permanent conservancy worker / sweeper from 01.08.1995 by providing salary and other benefits to be calculated from 01.08.1995 and to pay the salary due from 01.08.2011 with due promotion and other benefits by the management and Ex.M.9 order dated 02.05.2013 passed by respondent board to be set asided and Vasu has to be declared as full time conservancy worker / sweeper from 01.08.1995 with back-wages and other attendant benefits and point is decided accordingly.
58. In the result, the claim of petitioner union that Mr.V.Vasu who is the part time conservancy worker has to be appointed as full time permanent conservancy worker and to be given the salary and other benefits of full time permanent conservancy worker is reasonable and the respondent is directed to recognize Mr.V.Vasu as permanent conservancy worker / sweeper from 01.08.1995 and to provide salary and other benefits to be calculated from 01.08.1995 and to pay the salary due from 01.08.2011 with due promotion and other benefits to him within three months from the date of this order and the petition is allowed by answering Government reference accordingly.” 20/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
17.Following the award dated 26.11.2015 in I.D. No. 96 of 2013 in favour of V. Vasu, the same trade union affiliated to CITU raised a collective industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking conferment of permanency as full-time workers for similarly placed employees. The dispute was raised before the Government Labour Officer, Salem. Upon issuing notice to TANGEDCO and conducting conciliation proceedings, which ultimately ended in failure, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report under Section 12(4) of the Act, dated 26.04.2018, to the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, neither party has furnished any information regarding the outcome of the said failure report or whether any order of reference was made by the State Government pursuant to it.
18.In any event, all four petitioners have approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 02.05.2013, seeking the relief of conferment of full-time status and permanency from the date on which they had completed 480 days of service within a span of 24 calendar months. They further seek fixation of their pay scale on par with that applicable to permanent sweepers for the period commencing from the said date up to 22.11.2011 / 23.11.2011, and thereafter, payment of arrears of wages along with all 21/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 consequential benefits, by extending to them the benefit of the award dated 26.11.2015 passed in I.D. No. 96 of 2013.
19.The petitioners were, however, unaware that the award obtained by V. Vasu was initially set aside by this Court by order dated 10.11.2022 in W.P. No. 9743 of 2017 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. Pursuant to the remand, the Labour Court, by a fresh award dated 22.08.2024, granted relief in favour of V. Vasu. It has not been brought to the notice of this Court whether TANGEDCO has challenged the said award, although, as evident from the foregoing narrative, the corporation has a consistent practice of prolonging litigation and seldom permitting matters to attain finality.
20.In opposing the claims of the four petitioners, the 2nd respondent, in the counter statement filed, raised three principal contentions. The first contention was that the petitioners had not earlier approached the Court seeking full-time permanent status, and had such a demand been made known at the relevant time, TANGEDCO would have pursued the pending writ appeal before the Division Bench, which had already been filed with a delay. 22/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021
21.The second contention raised by TANGEDCO is set out in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:
“I state that if the Petitioners indicated that their undertaking was only to give up backwages and not otherwise, the Respondent would have taken steps to have the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.Nos. 3047 to 3049 of 2006 and W.P.Nos. 5114 to 5116 of 2006 clarified or would have filed a Writ Appeal. Hence the delay in filing the Writ Petition is highly prejudicial to the Respondents and on this sole ground itself the Writ Petition ought not to be entertained.”
22.It is indeed disconcerting that a statutory body such as TANGEDCO has taken a position founded on mere speculation. If TANGEDCO was genuinely aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge, it was incumbent upon them to file an appeal promptly, rather than await the reaction or stance of the workmen. In fact, it is the workmen who had a legitimate cause for grievance, having pursued their claim diligently since the year 2002 by approaching the appropriate authority under the Permanent Status Act.
23.When this Court confirmed the order passed by the Permanent Status Authority, the learned Judge who heard the matter made two aspects abundantly clear: (1) that the Court was not interfering with the order of the Permanent 23/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 Status Authority, which had exercised its powers in accordance with the relevant statute to pass appropriate directions; and (2) that TANGEDCO was at liberty to pass consequential orders, which would not attain finality and could be challenged by the parties through appropriate legal remedies. This portion of the order, already referred to earlier, is once again reproduced below for clarity:
“..when such conferment of permanent status is ordered, such permanent status can be at a level which according to the Board that was in existence as on the date as claimed by the workmen and that if any controversy should arise on the stand of the Board while conferring permanent status as directed by the Inspector of Labour and in the event of any necessity arising for determining such a controversy, either the Board or the workmen may have to work out their remedy by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act”
24.Accordingly, the four aggrieved workmen are well within their rights to challenge the decision of TANGEDCO to retain them as part-time employees and to deny them the benefits accruing from the date on which they completed 480 days of continuous service within a span of 24 calendar months, as directed by the Permanent Status Authority and in terms of the mandate under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Act 46 of 1981). Upon observing that the award passed in favour of V. Vasu was implemented by TANGEDCO, the same trade union raised a 24/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 collective industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and a failure report in that regard has already been forwarded to the Government.
25.It was only after the four petitioners became aware of the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of V. Vasu—who was similarly placed and was also a party to the proceedings before the Permanent Status Authority —that they sought extension of the same benefits accorded to V. Vasu pursuant to the award in I.D. No. 96 of 2013 dated 26.11.2015 (now reaffirmed by the fresh award dated 22.08.2024).
26.In opposition to the above contention, the second respondent, in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, has stated as follows:
“I state that the inspiration of this Writ Petition is the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.96/2013 the case of one Mr.V.Vasu. I state that the same would show that the Petitioners are acquiesced to the order dated 02.05.2013 and only as an award was passed in favour of one Mr.V.Vasu, they have filed this Writ Petition, after 8 long years. I state that the Petitioners had hence acquiesced to the order dated 02.05.2013 and hence on this ground as well the Writ Petition is not maintainable.”
27.The plea of acquiescence raised by TANGEDCO deserves to be 25/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 rejected outright. The legal position on the doctrine of acquiescence has been clearly elucidated by this Court in L. Ragupathy v. Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, reported in 1991 (2) LLN 148 = 1991 (1) LLJ 364 (Madras DB), in the following terms:
“6.....There are certain principles, which could not be lost sight of when a plea of acquiescence is put forth by one party against the other to deny the legitimate claims of the latter. Acquiescence denotes conduct, which is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon a right legitimately due to him. It may also denote a conduct from which the opposite party is justified in inferring such an intention. Acquiscence is only a form of estoppel, and it is of the essence of acquiescence that the party acquiescing should be aware of his rights; and by words or conduct should represent that he assents to what is a violation of his rights and that the person to whom such representation is made should be ignorant of the other party's rights, and should have been deluded by the representation into thinking that his wrongful action was assented to by the other party. The question of estoppel or acquiescence is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided on proper materials placed before the Court. Once the facts are established, acquiescence is a matter of legal inference by the Court. It is fundamental that the plea of acquiescence should have been specifically expressed by the party, who wants to build a case on it, and there should be an issue on that point at the appropriate stage, so that the opposite party, who is asked to face the plea of acquiescence could meet it effectively. Acquiescence could not be a matter of bare presumptions and assumptions. It is a question of fact which has got to be pleaded and further has got to be proved. The burden of proof of the ingredients of acquiescence is on the party, who relies on the same. ”
28.It is always open to employees serving in a statutory public sector 26/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 undertaking—which qualifies as a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution—to contend that if relief has been granted to another similarly placed individual, the same relief ought to be extended to them as well. Failure to do so would amount to arbitrary action on the part of the State instrumentality and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. To assert such a right, an employee of a State instrumentality is not necessarily required to raise an industrial dispute or approach an alternate forum. Such employees are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, including for the purpose of challenging actions of their employer that result in invidious discrimination.
29.In addition to the remedies available under labour laws, such employees are entitled to directly approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioners have already availed statutory remedies by first approaching the Permanent Status Authority and subsequently the Labour Court through claim petitions. The orders passed by both authorities have been affirmed by this Court. It is also pertinent to note that these workmen voluntarily relinquished monetary benefits amounting to nearly Rs. 1,00,000/-
each, solely with the objective of securing the benefit of permanent status and 27/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 regular full-time employment.
30.The Supreme Court, in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors., reported in (1975) 1 SCC 421, has held as follows:
“The Court must, therefore, adopt the attitude that declaration is the normal remedy for a wrongful dismissal in case of public employees which will only be refused in exceptional circumstances. The remedy of declaration should be a ready-made instrument to provide reinstatement in public sector. Once it is accepted that a man's job is like his property of which he can be deprived of for specific reasons, this remedy becomes the primary one though it will need to be reinforced where private individuals are being sued. The law of master and servant has not kept pace with the modem conditions and the mandate of equality embodied in the Constitution. The law still attaches to the servant a status of inferiority and subjection to his master. Though fundamental reforms can only emanate from the legislature, the principles fashioned by public law if applied to master-servant relationship can bring about a change in law to accord with the social conditions of the 20th Century generally "Public Law Principles Applicable to Dismissal from Employment" by G. Gan , 30 Modern Law Rev. 288.
That apart, the regulations framed by these corporations were intended to be binding upon them and were the bases on which the employments were made. As the employments were under corporations created by statutes for carrying on businesses of public importance, they were public employment. And even if the regulations have not got the force of law, I think the principle laid down by Justice Frank-further in Viterelli v. Seaton 359 U.S 536, at 546-547 should govern the situation. He said :28/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged.... According, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed.... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with that sword.”
31.It must be held that the case of the workman V. Vasu, as covered by the award of the Labour Court, stands on the same footing as that of the four petitioners herein. In fact, Vasu had initiated proceedings alongside the four petitioners and two other workmen, both before the Permanent Status Authority and the Labour Court. When the orders of both authorities were confirmed by two learned Judges of this Court, identical directions were issued in respect of all seven workmen, including Vasu. There existed no distinguishing feature between Vasu and the four petitioners, save for the fact that Vasu obtained an additional benefit through a separate award passed by the Labour Court in consequence of a collective dispute raised by the trade union affiliated to CITU. Even after the orders of this Court, the petitioners have not abandoned their claim to permanent status and regular employment. On the contrary, they relinquished monetary benefits of approximately Rs.1,00,000/- each—amounts which were computed by the Labour Court—solely to secure the benefit of 29/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 regularisation. To now drive these workmen to initiate another round of reference and adjudication would be both unjust and avoidable. This Court would be failing in its constitutional obligation if it were to deny the same benefit granted to Vasu to the petitioners herein. Extending the same relief would not only uphold the principles of equality and fairness but also serve the larger interest of avoiding multiplicity of litigation and bringing to a close a dispute that has persisted for over two decades.
32.Had the respondents acted responsibly and in the true spirit of the orders passed by this Court, they could have, instead of issuing the impugned orders dated 02.05.2013, directed the restoration of the petitioners’ status in accordance with the provisions of the Permanent Status Act and the order passed by the competent authority thereunder. Rather than regularising their services as full-time employees, the respondents unjustifiably altered their employment to a part-time basis, without any legal foundation or justification for such action.
33.In the case of V. Vasu, the Labour Court, even in its fresh award dated 30/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 22.08.2024, recorded the following finding in paragraph 53:
“Hence the order of the respondent cannot take away the rights of the workmen under Sec.3(1) of the said Act and the respondent is under statutory obligations to fulfill the claim of the petitioner union to absorb the petitioner and grant him permanent conservancy worker status from 01.08.1995 with all back-wages and other attendant benefits from 01.08.2011.”
34.Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as extended to V. Vasu, and the contentions raised by the respondent-TANGEDCO stand rejected. Consequently, the writ petition in W.P. No. 8514 of 2021 is allowed as prayed for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay costs of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioners, so that each petitioner receives Rs. 10,000/- towards costs, considering that these conservancy workers, belonging to historically oppressed sections, have been compelled to engage in protracted litigation for over two decades.
29.05.2025 ay NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order 31/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 To
1. Chairman & Managing Director, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
3. Mettur Workshop Circle, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, Mettur Dam.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal.
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J ay
5. The Superintending Engineer, Erode Generation Circle, Oorachikkottai, Bhavani Taluk, Erode – 638 302.
32/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 Pre-Delivery Judgment made in W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 33/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm ) W.P.No. 8514 of 2021 29.05.2025 34/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )