← Library
Madras High CourtWP/25179/2015disposed of with direction

The Commissioner v. The Labour Inspector

2025-04-15Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and M.P.No.1 of 2015 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.

2.The Superintendent Engineer, Mechanical Department, Corporation of Chennai.

... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Labour Inspector, Authorized under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, Circle - III, Chennai.

2.Munisamy 3.Tamilvanan 4.D.Anadaraj 5.R.Kannan 6.J.Elumalai 7.E.Nagaraj 8.Rajesh Page No.1 of 10

9.L.Srinivasan 10.K.Srinivasan 11.M.Isral 12.S.Dhanikachalam 13.M.Venkat Rao 14.M.Elumalai 15.P.Shankar 16.P.Rajesh 17.M.Raj 18.S.Sathish Kumar 19.P.Prasanna Kumar 20.N.Johnsy Rani 21.Babu Rao 22.Anandan 23.S.Lingeswaran 24.K.Arumugam 25.T.Venkatrao 26.J.Jeeva 27.M.Murugan 28.R.Ravichandran 29.G.Venkata Rao 30.M.Chandran 31.K.Samuvel 32.N.Kamaraj 33.R.Adhi 34.S.Gopal 35.G.Suresh 36.N.Murali 37.M.Loganathan 38.M.Venkatesalu 39.A.James 40.K.Hendry 41.E.Mohan 42.S.Bala 43.R.Venkatesan 44.P.Selvaraj 45.M.Rajan Page No.2 of 10

46.S.Vijayakumar 47.S.Madan 48.G.Mohan 49.E.Singaravelan 50.C.Devaraj 51.K.Loganathan 52.K.Joseph 53.S.Kumaravel 54.L.Sivasankar 55.N.Vinodh 56.L.Purushothaman 57.D.Raja 58.D.Kannan 59.A.Murali 60.R.Silambarasan 61.G.Sureshkumar 62.K.Baskar 63.K.Palani 64.P.Deivasigamani 65.K.Chandrasekar 66.D.Govindaraj 67.M.Karunakaran 68.R.Arun 69.R.Suresh 70.G.Murugan 71.S.Munusamy 72.C.Ravi 73.M.Ruba Krishnan 74.R.Rithish 75.A.Rajeshkumar 76.M.Gnansekar 77.S.Abudhakhir 78.J.Vinodhbabu 79.G.Ravi 80.G.Thirupathiaya 81.N.Venkatesan 82.K.Manikandan Page No.3 of 10

83.G.Jagadeesan 84.M.Jayaraman 85.R.Jayaraman 86.M.Rajendran 87.S.D.Devasagayam 88.K.Arunakiri 89.B.Kumar 90.A.Sureshbabu 91.D.Boopathy 92.J.D.Danial 93.O.V.Manikandan 94.S.Sriram 95.P.Babu 96.H.Vengadesan 97.Y.Suresh 98.A.Karthik 99.P.Sampath Kumar 100.M.Rajan 101.E.Mohan 102.M.Nagarajan 103.M.Gnanasekar 104.Y.Pillaiyah 105.K.Vengadesan 106.G.Hariharan 107.K.Vijayakumar 108.S.Mohammed Ali 109.Vasu 110.R.Babu 111.S.Prabu 112.G.N.Srinivasalu 113.R.Ravi 114.A.Mohan 115.A.Vadivelan 116.R.Ragavan 117.D.Selvamakesh 118.P.Ravikumar 119.P.Munusamy Page No.4 of 10

120.R.Padmanapan 121.M.Paulraj 122.S.Santhiramurthi 123.T.Chinnamiraiyah ... Respondents [R96 to R123 are impleaded as per order dt.22.03.2016 made in W.M.P.No.7001 of 2016 in W.P.No.25179 of 2015] Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the orders on the file of the 1st respondent herein in Case No.240 of 2013 and quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the 1st respondent herein. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gopinathan For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader [R1] Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram for Mr.P.Suresh [R2 to R123] *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the orders on the file of the 1st respondent herein in Case No.240 of 2013 and quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the 1st respondent herein. Page No.5 of 10

2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 to 132 are contract employees and without rendering 480 days of continuous service in two calendar years under the Corporation of Chennai, they made application before the 1st respondent seeking Conferment of Permanent Status in Case No.240 of 2013. The 1st respondent, passed the impugned order dated 27.01.2015, directing the Corporation of Chennai to regularize the services of the private respondents. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st respondent should have consider that in present case the necessary parties, namely the contractors, who engaged the respondents 2 to 123 for work had not been made as a party to the case. Hence, it is the case for dismissal in limine. Further, he submitted that the 1st respondent ought to have seen that the respondents 2 to 123 are not workmen under the Corporation in order to get the benefit of permanency in Corporation. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition. Page No.6 of 10

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 123 submitted that, some of the documents which are available with the respondents 1 to 123 were not marked before the 1st respondent. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the 1st respondent for letting fresh evidence.

5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the 1st respondent, this Court may direct the 1st respondent to decide the conferment of permanent status upon satisfaction of 480 days of service of the respondents 2 to 123 in two calendar years.

6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.240 of 2013 and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. While re-considering the same, the 1st respondent is directed to permit the parties to let-in fresh evidence and upon Page No.7 of 10

perusing the entire documents and on satisfaction that respondents 2 to 123 have been in employment under the petitioners for a period of 480 days in two calendar years, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the case, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp Page No.8 of 10

To 1.The Labour Inspector, Authorized under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, Circle - III, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Mechanical Department, Corporation of Chennai.

Page No.9 of 10

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

sp 15.04.2025 Page No.10 of 10