The Superintending v. The Asst. Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.Nos.21782, 27296, 27088 & 27896 of 2019, 16445, 16453, 16243, 19688 & 20003 of 2021 and 15213, 15217, 15219, 15220, 15226, 15964, 15966, 15968, 16127, 16129, 16132, 19474, 20594 & 29127 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.20991, 26723, 26459 & 27471 of 2019, 17184, 17417, 17420, 20967 & 21267 of 2021 and 14390, 14394, 14397, 14398, 14401, 15285, 15286, 15288, 15506, 15509, 15511, 18769, 19714 & 28417 of 2022 W.P.No.16445 of 2021:
1.
The Superintending Engineer, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, Central office, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Krishnangiri - 5.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.
Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to workmen)Act, 1981, Krishnagiri.
2.
K.Kalimurugan 3.
R.Samaraj 4.
G.Mathesan 1/8
5.
T.Suresh 6.
M.Madhesh 7.
K.Chandrasekar 8.
G.Kaliappan 9.
R.Santhosh 10.
V.Ramesh Babu 11.
V.Chandra Rao 12.
M.Kaveriappa 13.
R.Murugesh 14.
N.Manju 15.
V.Manju 16.
V.Hariprasath 17.
C.Mahendran 18.
P.Shanmugham 19.
G.Krishnamurthy 20.
S.Kandaraj 21.
M.Murali 22.
K.Kariellappa 23.
N.Anilkumar 24.
N. Sudhakar 25.
S.Suresh 26.
S.Venkatesh 27.
P.Raji 28.
S.Ramesh 29.
K.Anantha 30.
M.Madhesh 31.
B.Madhusudanan 32.
K.Muniraj 33.
M.Subramani 34.
M.Chandrasekar 35.
P.Francis Souriappan 36.
M.Krishnan 37.
K.Arunachalam 38.
M.Ramakrishnan 39.
B.Krishnan 40.
K.Periyavan 41.
A.Ganesan 2/8
42.
C.Muniappan 43.
G.Subramani 44.
K.Anbu 45.
M.Jayakumar 46.
E. Arunkumar 47.
K.Sivagnanam 48.
G.Kumar S.Murugesan 50.
E.Sivakumar 51.
P.Chidambaram 52.
P.Chandrasekar 53.
P.Sivaprakasam 54.
S.Manickam 55.
V.Thiruppathi 56.
P.Govindaraj 57.
V.Chinnasamy 58.
M.Narayanasamy 59.
M.Murugavel 60.
C.Madhaiyan
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.2261/2017 and quash its order dated 22.10.2018. In W.P.No.16445 of 2021:
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, AGP, for R 1 : M/s.V.Srimathi, for R 3, 4, 18 & 21 : No Appearance, for R 2, 5, 6 to 8, 10 to 17, 19 to 20, 22 to 46, 48 to 60 : Notice Not Ready, for R 9 & 47 3/8
COMMON ORDER Though the matters were listed separately, as the issue arises in all these Writ petitions are similar in nature, they are grouped together and disposed of by this common order.
2. When the matters were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submitted that, the issue involved in these Writ petitions are no longer res integra and the similar issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 etc., batch of cases, wherein the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.03.2022, set aside the orders passed by the Labour Inspector and remanded the matter to the Labour Inspector.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective workmen submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had only remanded the matter to the Labour Inspector to decide the issue and, therefore, submitted that similar order may be passed in the present petitions as well. 4/8
4. Heard learned on either side and perused the material documents placed on record.
5. A perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 07.03.2022 made in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 etc., batch of cases, it is evident that, the Division Bench already arrived a conclusion that, the Labour Inspectors have no power to decide the issue in respect of the contract labourers who are working under the Contractors and they are governed by the various Labour legislations. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- "34. We have considered the submission aforesaid and find that the order passed by the Labour Inspector needs to be interfered with remand of the case.
It is, however, to be made clear that the Labour Inspector would not cause enquiry beyond the powers given under the Act of 1981 and thereby would not be having jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated questions of fact and law in reference to any other statute than the Act of 1981. The Labour Inspector may, for the purpose of conducting summary enquiry, allow the parties to produce documents and if any of the workmen has completed 480 days of continuous service in 24 calendar months, appropriate directions can be issued for granting permanency.
referring to the period of 24 calendar months. The benefit as to the consequences thereupon would be only for the period of employment and if any of the workman is discontinued or not in service, he would be entitled to the benefit only for the period of service and not beyond that and, that too, after the completion of continuous service of 480 days in 24 calendar months, and not for a prior period. The direction aforesaid is not driven by the settlement for the reason that the workmen herein are those who were not extended the benefit of settlement and, therefore, sought claims by maintaining claim separately. However, it would not preclude both the sides from entering into settlement, if they so choose, during the period of summary enquiry by the Labour Inspector. The issue as to whether the respondents fall within the definition of "workman" is however decided against the petitioner Corporation, as not only a settlement was entered, but adjudication about claim to seek permanency has been decided earlier in reference to similarly placed.
35. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of by causing interference with the order passed by the Labour Inspector. The orders passed by the Labour Inspector are set aside with remand of the case to the Labour Inspector for passing orders afresh, after summary enquiry."
6. The present cases in hand, being similar in nature, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Inspector of Labour, to decide the issue strictly in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
6/8
7. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.09.2023 skt NCC : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Index : Yes / No To Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to workmen)Act, 1981, Krishnagiri.
7/8
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt W.P.Nos.21782, 27296, 27088 & 27896 of 2019, 16445, 16453, 16243, 19688 & 20003 of 2021 and 15213, 15217, 15219, 15220, 15226, 15964, 15966, 15968, 16127, 16129, 16132, 19474, 20594 & 29127 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.20991, 26723, 26459 & 27471 of 2019, 17184, 17417, 17420, 20967 & 21267 of 2021 and 14390, 14394, 14397, 14398, 14401, 15285, 15286, 15288, 15506, 15509, 15511, 18769, 19714 & 28417 of 2022 22.09.2023 8/8