The Superintending Engineer vs The Inspector Of Labour on 24 October, 2008
22. The decision of the Supreme Court which was an immediate sequel to Justice Khalid Commission ought to be understood as applicable only to cases of contract labours as helpers, whose minimum qualifications had been set forth in the Regulations but not generally to persons who had directly employed by the Electricity board itself on temporary basis but who continued in employment for more than 480 days, and who belonged to the class of persons below the rank of helpers for whom alone the Regulations prescribed a minimum educational qualification of National Trade Certificate (NTC)/National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) courses. This situation has been substantially considered in the decision of the learned single judge in Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Board Distribution Circle, Vellore -Vs- Inspector of Labour reported in 2004 (3) LLN 598. This decision itself is the subject of challenge before us but the board has, by entering in to the settlement which is in challenge, has literally made the appeals infructuous by giving in to the claims of the workmen and endorsing the correctness of the judgment. The actual status of several of the workmen had been dealt with in the judgment of the learned Judge in paragraphs 33 and 34 that adverted to the factual findings rendered by the Labour Inspector that all those workmen so called as contract labourers were actually appointed directly by the board and therefore, the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment and Permanent Status of Workmen) Act were clearly attracted. The Supreme Court has also held that creation of new posts, even if such exercise reduces chances of promotion to the existing cadre, could not be objected (Bakshish Singh Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1985 SC 1272:1985 Supplement I SCC 116.