Madras High Court
The Management vs The Deputy Director on 29 May, 2025
W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 23.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 25636 and 25642 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos. 27067 and 27075 of 2021
The Management,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation,
Aavin Milk and Milk Power Industry,
Ammapalayam,
Tiruvannamalai District. …. Petitioners in both WPs
Vs.
1.The Deputy Director,
The Industrial Safety and Health Department,
Tiruvannamalai District. …1st Respondent in both WPs
2. V.Chennan
S/o. Venkatraman,
251A, Narasinganallur,
Thorapadi (Po), Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dist – 606704 …2nd Respondent in WP 25636/2021
3. V.Nandakumar
S/o. Venkatesan,
No.365, 4th Street, Krayamangalam,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606709 2nd Respondent in WP 25642/2021
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
4. R.Seetha,
W/o. Ravi,
456, New Street, Kolundamapattu,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt– 606709 …3rd Respondent in WP 25642/2021
5. S.G.Rajendiran,
S/o. Govindhasamy,
No.236, Pinjur (Vill), Pinjur Po,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt– 606709 …4th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
6. R.Viji,
S/o. Rajee,
No.152, Mariyammam Kovil Street,
C Sorpanandhal,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606709 …5th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
7. E.Duraisamy,
S/o. Elumalai,
No.865, East Kollal, Thanakoundan,
Puthur, Eraiyur,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606704 …6th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
8. A.Loganathan,
S/o. Athimulam,
No.51, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Unmalapayam Pudur,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606705 …7th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
9. S.Ramesh,
S/o.Subbaramani,
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
No.308, Bharathy Nagar,
Dhukkapettai Manmalai,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt– 606709 …8th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
10.R.Senthil,
S/o. Rajakili,
No.30C, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Ariyakunju S Sorpanandai,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606706 …9th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
11. S.Gnanasekaran
S/o. Suppakavundar,
No.229, Mandapath street,
Ammapalayam Eraiyur Post,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606704 …10th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
12. S.Ramasami,
S/o. Subramani,
No.33, Sengunther Street,
Pudupalayam,
Tiruvannamalai Dt - 606705 …11th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
13. R.Murugan,
S/o. Ramasamy,
No.427, Dheder Nagar,
Santhanoor Post Village,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606706 …12th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
14. M.Rajeshwari,
W/o. Murugan,
No.377, Mariamman Kovil Street,
G.Kuppanthanal, Kozhunthampattu,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606706 …13th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
15. N.K.Shankar,
S/o. Kannan,
No.1553, Melmannur Nachipattu,
Kariyamangalam,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606709 …14th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
16. A.Radhakrishnan,
S/o. Amaavaasai,
No.105A, Sorpanandhal Post,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt 606706 …15th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
17. M.Rajalakshmi,
W/o. Munusamy,
School Street,
Malkaraiyamangalam (V.P),
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606709 ….16th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
18. A.Chandrasekaran,
S/o. Ayothi,
No.110, Mariyamman Kovil Street,
Mel Manmali, Thurkkapattai Po,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannammalai Dt - 606709 …17th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
19. D.Uthirakumar,
S/o. Deveraj,
No.264, Ammapalayam, Eraiyur Post,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt – 606704. ….18th Respondent in WP 25642/2021
Prayer in W.P.No. 25636 of 2021
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
To issue a Writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ in the nature of
a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated
16.03.2020 made in I.D.No.01/2019 on the file of the Deputy Director of
Industrial Safety and Health, Tiruvannamalai and to quash the same as unjust
and arbitrary and to pass such further or other orders as may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Prayer in W.P.No. 25642 of 2021
To issue a Writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ in the nature of
a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated
16.03.2020 made in I.D.No. 01/2018 on the file of the Deputy Director of
Industrial Safety and Health, Tiruvannamalai and to quash the same as unjust
and arbitrary and to pass such further or other orders as may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Prayer in W.M.P.No. 27067 of 2021 (in W.P.No. 25636 of 2021)
To stay all the further proceedings in pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s order in
I.D.No.1 of 2019 dated 16.03.2020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and
thus render justice.
Prayer in W.M.P.No. 27075 of 2021 (in W.P.No. 25642 of 2021)
To stay all the further proceedings in pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s order in
I.D.No.1 of 2018 dated 16.03.2020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and
thus render justice.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : M/s. D.Venkatesan and M.Selvalingam, Advocates
5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
In both WPs
For Respondent 1 : Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGP
In both WPs
For Respondent 2
In WP 25636/2021 & Mr.K.Elango, Advocate
For Respondents 2 to 18 : For M/s. S.Sivakumar, J.Prathaban and S.Rudranath,
In WP 25642/2021 Advocates
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The Petitioner is the Co-operative Milk Producers Union of Tiruvannamalai District. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the 1st Respondent, the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. By the impugned orders dated 16.03.2020, the authority directed the Petitioner Union to confer permanent status upon 19 workmen, whose details are the subject matter of these writ petitions. The authority held that each of the said workmen had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of 24 calendar months, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement for conferment of permanent status. The annexures to the impugned orders enumerate the names of the workmen, their respective dates of initial engagement, their 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 designations, and the dates from which they were deemed to have acquired permanent status.
3.When both writ petitions were listed for admission on 03.12.2021, this Court ordered notice to the Respondents and granted an interim stay of the impugned orders. Pursuant to such notice, the Respondents entered appearance through counsel and have filed counter affidavits dated 18.10.2023 in both writ petitions. The principal ground urged by the Petitioner Union is that the workmen in question were engaged on a daily wage basis at the Dairy-cum-
Powder Plant at Ammapalayam. In addition to the regular employees, the Petitioner submits that casual labourers were engaged intermittently for tasks such as packing of milk powder, storage, and loading of goods into lorries.
4.It was contended although the workmen were covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, the mere applicability of those statutes does not, by itself, confer upon them the status of regular employees.
The Petitioner also contends that the benefit of G.O. (Ms) No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013—which provided 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 for the regularisation of employees engaged on daily wages for ten years as on 01.01.2006—would not be applicable to the present set of workmen.
Nevertheless, the concerned workers individually approached the 1st Respondent Authority seeking conferment of permanent status. In respect of the first writ petition, the claims of 17 workmen were consolidated and registered as Case No. 1 of 2018, and notice was issued to the Petitioner Union. Likewise, in respect of one Mr. V. Chennan, a separate proceeding was initiated and numbered as Case No. 1 of 2019. Along with their respective applications, the workmen had submitted their identity cards and Provident Fund receipts as documentary proof in support of their claims.
5.Upon receipt of notice in both cases, the Petitioner Union filed a counter statement opposing the claims of the workmen. In the said statement, it was contended that the contesting Respondents had never worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year and, therefore, did not satisfy the statutory criteria for conferment of permanent status. It was further asserted that the Government Order relating to regularisation was inapplicable to them and, in the absence of valid orders of regular appointment, no claim for permanency could be sustained. The 1st Respondent Authority, after clubbing both matters, 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 proceeded to pass a common order dated 16.03.2020.
6.In the impugned order, the Authority concluded that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (T.N. Act 46 of 1981) were applicable to the Petitioner Union, and that the contesting Respondents were, in fact, its employees. With respect to the requirement of completion of 480 days of service within a period of 24 calendar months, the Authority rendered its findings in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order, which are extracted below:— “21/kDjhuu;fs; jh';fs; 480 ehl;fs; gzpahw;wpaij epUg: pg;gjw;fhf j';fspd; tU';fhy itg;g[ epjpgl;oay; bjhFg;g[ jhf;fy; bra;Js;shu;/ mjpy; mtu;fs; gzpapy; nru;e;j ehs; Kjy; bjhlu;rr; pahf midj;J khj';fspYk; tU';fhy itg;g[ epjp gpoj;jk; bra;J brYj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mnjnghy mtu;fs; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s rk;gs t';fp fzf;F g[j;jfj;jpYk;. mtu;fSf;F midj;J khj';fspYk; Cjpak;
mspff; g;gl;Ls;sJ/ eput
; hfk;. mij kWf;ftpy;iy/ epu;thfk;.
kDjhuu;fs; 480 ehl;fs; bjhlu;rr; pahf ntiy bra;atpy;iy vd kWj;J ve;j Mtzj;ija[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ gyKiw tha;g;gspjJ ; k;. epu;thfk; tUifg;gjpntL. rk;gsg;gjpntL jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ 22///////kDjhuu;fs; j';fSf;Fz;lhd “epU:gpf;Fk; bghWg;ig” thf;FK:yk; K:ykhft[k;. milahs ml;il. tU';fhy itg;g[ epjp gl;oay;. rk;gsk; bgw;wJ bjhlu;ghd t';fp fzf;F g[j;jf';fs; efy;. rku;gpj;jjd; K:ykhft[k; kpfr;rupahf epiwntw;wpapUf;fpwhu;fs;/ ,g;nghJ. kDjhuu;fSf;F vjpuhf epU:gpf;f ntz;oa bghWg;g[ vjpu;kDjhuu;fSf;F ,lk;khw;wg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. j';fsplk; cs;s jFe;j Mtz';fis. ,k;kd;wj;jpd; Kd;ghf rku;gpj;J. epU:gpf;fntz;oa bghWg;g[ vjpu;kDjhuu;fSf;nf cs;sJ/ Mdhy;. epu;thfk;. ,J bjhlu;ghd 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 Mtz';fis jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ kDjhuu;fs; j';fs; jug;g[ Mtz';fshf tU';fhy itg;g[ epjp bjhFg;g[gg; l;oay; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shu;fs;/ me;j Mtzj;jpy; kDjhuu;fs; gzpapy; nru;e;j khjk;- tUlk;. bjhlu;rr; pahf gzpahw;wptUtjw;fhd rk;gsk; jug;gl;Ls;sJ Fwpgg; plg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mnjnghy itg;g[ epjpa[k; khje;njhWk; gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuu;fs; gt[lu; ngf;fp'; Jiwapy; bjhlu;rr; pahf gzpahw;wpa[ss ; hu;fs; vd j';fs; jug;gpy; cs;s epu;thfk; je;Js;s Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; epU:gpj;Js;shu;fs;/ vdnt. kDjhuu;fs; 24 fhyz;lu; khj';fspy; 480 ehl;fs; gzpg[upe;Js;shu;fs; vd;gij epUg: pj;Js;shu;fs; Kot[fhz;fpnwd;/ vdnt. “kDjhuufs; 24 ehl;fhl;o khj';fspy; 480 ehl;fs; bjhlu;e;J gzpahw;wpaJ Mtz';fs; mog;gilapy; epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy;. kDjhuu;fSf;F ,e;j cj;jutpd; ml;ltizapy; bjuptpj;Js;sthW Kjy;
epue;ju jFjpaspjJ ; cj;jutpLfpnwd;/”
7.Learned counsel for the workmen sought to sustain the findings of the Authority by placing reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court rendered on the subject. In Sita Ram v. Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 75, the Supreme Court held as follows:— “14. Appellants have brought on records atleast some documentary evidences to show that they have been working at least for two years. Even provident fund had been deducted from their wages. Each of the appellant examined himself before the Labour Court. They had called for the requisite documents. The documents produced before the Labour Court were wholly irrelevant, as the services of the workman were terminated in December, 1996 itself. What was called for from them was the documents for the period during which the appellants claimed to have been working with the respondent.
10/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
15. It furthermore appears from the records that, the wages were being paid in a wage-sheet and no pay slip used to be issued therefor. Appellants, thus, were not expected to produce any pay slip. No exception therefore, can be taken to the findings of the Labour Court.
16. It is evident that the respondents have withheld the best evidence. The wage sheet, the provident fund records and other documents were in their possession. They were statutorily required to maintain some documents. It may be true that the learned Labour Court did not draw any adverse inference expressly, but whether such an adverse inference has been drawn or not must be considered upon reading the entire Award. The High Court, in our opinion, has wrongly opined that the award suffers from an error of law and was otherwise based on surmises and conjectures.”
8.Further, in Director of Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajbhai Chavda, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:— “The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this court pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the employer/appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service..” 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
9.In response to the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the learned counsel for the workmen submitted that the said decision has been distinguished in several subsequent judgments. It was contended that the principle laid down in Umadevi would not apply in cases where a special statute governs the subject matter. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur Casual Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 786, wherein it was held as follows:— “Almost similar issue relating to unfair trade practice by employer and the effect of decision of Umadevi (3) in the grant of relief was considered by this Court in Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6327 of 2014 decided on 9th July, 2014. In the said case, this Court observed and held as follows: "20.The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi's case. The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was it decided in Umadevi's case.
We have noticed that Industrial Disputes Act is made for settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees.” 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
10.The aforesaid judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umrala Gram Panchayat v. The Secretary, Municipal Workmen Union, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 775. In that case as well, the Court held as follows:— “The reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant upon the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.[3], does not apply to the fact situation of the present case and the same cannot be accepted by us in the light of the cogent reasons arrived at by the courts below.
In view of the reasons stated supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that the services of the concerned workmen are permanent in nature, since they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment, which is clear from the evidence on record. Therefore, not making their services permanent by the appellant-Panchayat is erroneous and also amounts to error in law. Hence, the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law.”
11.The nature of the activities undertaken by the Petitioner Milk Producers Union and the composition of the workforce employed at its unit in Ammapalayam were explained by the Respondents in their counter affidavit, particularly in paragraphs 3 and 6, which read as follows:— 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 “3. I submit that the Petitioner manufactures milk products such as Butter, Ghee, Milk powder etc. round 3 lakh litres of milk are being used daily to produce the dairy products. Every day 21 tones of milk powder, 11 tones of butter are produced. To develop the dairy products in Tiruvannamalai District, the Tamil nadu Government had started the Petitioner Industry during the year 2014. The Petitioner Management is manufacturing dairy products worth Rs.1 crore daily and earns huge profits. The Industry is running in profit since the date of its inception.” “6. ….. I state that with respect to Para No.4 of the affidavit, I state that there are only 35 permanent workmen in the Petitioner Industry. They are skilled workmen. The rest of the work force is unskilled. There are more than 110 unskilled daily-wage workmen I am one such daily wage workman. The daily wage workmen are employed in three shifts. 10 Permanent workmen along with the casual workmen in each shift. The casual workmen are working in production, packing, stacking, loading, unloading and house- keeping departments. The job done by us is of perennial nature. The Petitioner Management cannot run the factory with the minimum strength of 35 Permanent workmen. Though the casual workmen are working in the Petitioner Industry for more than 480 working days in two calendar years, the Management has not conferred Permanent status to them.”
12.To emphasise the effect of the non obstante clause contained in Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Workmen Union v.
T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation, reported in 1999 (3) LLN 286, and referred to the following passage therein:— 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 “Section 3(1), being a non obstante provision, it prevails over any law for the time being in force which includes any service rules, Government orders or Government instructions. Therefore, want of sanctioned posts as required under General Service Rules cannot take away the rights conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act Similarly, Government orders which require that the appointment should be made only through Employment Exchange also cannot be a ground to refuse the right provided under Section 3(1) of the Act of the petitioners (sic.) if they comply with the requirements prescribed under Section 3(1). Therefore, it is not open for the respondent to take shelter under any other law in force much less any Government Orders, Government instructions to deny the benefits conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act, to the petitioners if they satisfy the conditions prescribed, therein, irrespective of the fact whether there are irrespective of the availability of sanctioned posts or sponsorship from Employment Exchange.”
13.It is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Special Officer, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others in W.A. No. 1765 of 2019 and batch, dated 16.06.2023, wherein the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act to co-
operative institutions was upheld. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the Permanent Status Authority granting relief to the workmen, which had earlier been confirmed by a learned Single Judge. The relevant findings are contained in paragraphs 15, 22, and 23, which are extracted below:— 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 “15. Taking note of the above submission and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Neethivalangan, Kumbakonam, 2001 (9) SCC 99, in order to avoid further round of litigation and the workmen approaching the Authority under Section 6 of the 1981 Act for prosecution, we direct the Management to make the status of the workmen permanent in respect of 26 workmen, whose names are mentioned below and who are in service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and grant all terminal benefits minus back-wages, as aforementioned, in respect of the workmen, who have retired. Till such time the workmen are made permanent, they should be paid at least the wages applicable to an equivalent post.
22. In W.P.No.32966 of 2019, the workmen have not been recruited through Employment Exchange and there is no By-law, fixing the cadre strength. The Apex Court, in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao, 1996 (6) SCC 216, held that recruitment through Employment Exchange is not the only source. However, in a batch of cases, the workmen have been allowed to work for years together, allowing the deeming provision of Section 3 of the 1981 Act to apply.
23. In view of the same, we are of the view that the order of the Authority, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, is not to be interfered with, however, with certain modifications, as stated above, in view of the concession made by the learned counsel across the Bar. The modified order of this Court is expected to be implemented within the time stipulated in Paragraph 15 hereinabove.” 16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021
14.In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in the two cases impugned herein. Accordingly, W.P. Nos. 25636 of 2021 and 25642 of 2021 are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
29.05.2025 ay NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order To The Deputy Director, The Industrial Safety and Health Department, Tiruvannamalai District.
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J ay 17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25636 & 25642 of 2021 Pre-Delivery Judgment made in W.P.No. 25636 and 25642 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos. 27067 and 27075 of 2021 29.05.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )