The Superintending Engineer v. The Presiding Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI And M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, TEDC/Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.

... Petitioner in all the W.Ps.

Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

... Respondent in all the W.Ps.

2.E.Parasuraman ... Respondent in W.P.27102/2015 2.S.K.Arumugam ... Respondent in W.P.27103/2015 2.S.Srinivasan ... Respondent in W.P.27104/2015 2.R.Sasikumar ... Respondent in W.P.27105/2015 2.P.Devaraj ... Respondent in W.P.27106/2015 2.K.Senthil Kumaran ... Respondent in W.P.27107/2015 2.E.Prabu ... Respondent in W.P.27108/2015 2.S.Murali ... Respondent in W.P.27109/2015 Common Prayer:

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in C.P.Nos.271, 272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 285 and 286 of 2013 respectively dated 16.04.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as unsustainable in law.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal Advocates in all the W.Ps.

For Respondents : R1 - Court in all the W.Ps.

R2 - No Appearance in W.Ps.27102 to 27104 and 27106 to 27109 of 2015 Not Ready Notice in W.P.27105 of 2015 C O M M O N O R D E R The writ petitions have been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in C.P.Nos.271, 272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 285 and 286 of 2013 respectively dated 16.04.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as unsustainable in law. 2.Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respective second respondent filed computation petitions before the first respondent on the ground that they filed applications before the Inspector of Labour, Thiruvannamalai under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Confirmation of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 and the Inspector of Labour passed order in their favour. Even thereafter, minimum wages were not paid 2/4

to them. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, the order of the Inspector of Labour was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.153 of 2014 and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent is not sustainable one.

4.Since the order of the Inspector of Labour granting permanent status to the respective second respondent was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.153 of 2014 and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner, the orders of the first respondent dated 16.04.2014 made in C.P.Nos.271, 272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 285 and 286 of 2013 respectively, which were passed on the basis of the order of the Inspector of Labour granting permanent status to the respective second respondent, are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 19.03.2025 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No 3/4

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri To 1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

And M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 19.03.2025 4/4