The Commissioner v. The Inspector Of Labour
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.25056 of 2017 & 13620 of 2018 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.
2.The Superintendent Engineer, Mechanical Department, Corporation of Chennai.
... Petitioners in both WPs Vs.
1.The Inspector of Labour, Circle - 3, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
2.C.Thiyagarajan 3.R.V.Munikrishna 4.R.Manoharan 5.B.Charan 6.B.R.Haribabu 7.S.Suresh 8.R.Gokulakrishnan 9.S.Chinna Guruvaya 10.L.Prathap 11.K.N.Pradap 12.G.Gopal 13.C.Arumugam Page No.1 of 10
14.K.Kumaravel 15.M.Thirumalavasu 16.M.Chandrasekaran 17.B.Benerze 18.G.Joseph 19.N.Devendran 20.G.Thomas 21.K.Nagaraj 22.S.Shankar 23.A.Raja 24.R.Kamala Kannan 25.G.Haribabu 26.A.Kamaraj 27.E.Singaravelan 28.J.Babu 29.G.Arunkumar 30.C.H.Sarathkumar 31.P.Kuppusamy 32.G.Duraikannu 33.A.Thirumalai 34.K.Bhaskar 35.P.Murugan 36.K.Manikandan 37.C.Venkatesh 38.R.Bhaskel Joseph 39.G.U.Yuvaraj 40.R.Ramesh 41.D.Bhaskar 42.K.Murukesan 43.I.Senthilkumar 44.J.Chandrasekar 45.G.Harikrishnan 46.K.G.Saravanan 47.S.Srinivasan 48.M.Ravindran 49.R.Raju 50.Y.Kirupanandam 51.C.Lokesh 52.P.Srinivasalu Page No.2 of 10
53.A.P.Mohanbabu 54.K.Ravi 55.K.Pandi 56.N.P.Narasimalu 57.J.Vijaya Bhaskararao 58.G.Sathish Kumar 59.M.Dillibabu 60.P.Gopi 61.S.Ravi 62.G.Arumugam 63.B.Karthick 64.S.Rajan 65.K.S.Ayyanar 66.A.G.M.Denzhil 67.S.Saravanan 68.M.Venkatraman 69.B.Thirumal Kumar 70.C.Prasanna Kumar 71.R.Nagaraj 72.T.Jacob 73.T.Angaiya 74.R.Rajkamal 75.B.Umapathy 76.M.Dinamurali 77.A.Abdulla 78.P.Tailselvam 79.V.Vimalnath 80.A.Radhakrishnan 81.J.Velmurugan 82.J.Yesuva 83.B.Kishore 84.A.Edwin Jabakumar 85.L.Tamizharasan 86.P.Vadivelu 87.M.Anandhan 88.S.Ramesh 89.E.Sankar 90.J.Lakshmanan 91.C.Devaraj Page No.3 of 10
92.S.Murugadoss 93.A.Dheenan 94.A.Moorthy 95.A.Ravikumar 96.R.Manivannan 97.R.Sureshkumar 98.K.Veeraragavan 99.P.Arumaidoss 100.K.Babu 101.D.Anand 102.T.Karthick 103.M.Babu 104.E.Srinivasan 105.R.Udayakumar 106.S.Yuvaraj 107.M.Raghu ... Respondents in W.P.No.23825 of 2017 1.The Inspector of Labour, {Empowered as the Inspector under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981} Circle - 3, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
2.Kamalakannan 3.D.Kishore 4.G.Alex Pandian 5.V.Shomaz 6.O.George 7.G.Srinivasan 8.R.Raghu 9.A.Srinivasulu 10.N.Shankar 11.B.Babu 12.K.Kanniyappan 13.A.Gajendran 14.R.Venkatesan 15.A.Babu 16.F.Gopi Page No.4 of 10
17.N.Manikandan 18.R.Venkatesh 19.J.Sudhakar 20.E.Bakthavatchalam 21.T.Nallaiya 22.A.Moorthy 23.S.Venkatesh 24.K.Chandrasekar 25.M.Mariyadoss 26.A.Kumar 27.J.Manikandan 28.B.Suriyaprakasam 29.M.G.Mahesh 30.N.Mohanbabu 31.S.Vijayakumar 32.P.Sekar 33.S.Dillibabu 34.J.Sathish 35.T.Kalesha 36.R.Karthikeyan 37.M.Raja 38.G.Karthikeyan 39.R.Murugesan 40.C.Murugesan 41.P.Jothi ... Respondents in W.P.No.11634 of 2018 Prayer in W.P.No.23825 of 2017 : 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.2180 of 2015 and quash the impugned order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the 1st respondent herein.
Prayer in W.P.No.11634 of 2018 : 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.E/1958 of Page No.5 of 10
2016 and quash the impugned order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the 1st respondent herein.
For Petitioners in both WPs : Mr.S.Gopinathan For R1 in both WPs : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader For R2 to R107 in W.P.No.23825 of 2017 & R2 to R41 in W.P.No.11634 of 2018 Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram for Mr.P.Suresh ***** COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the respective private respondents are contract employees and without rendering 480 days in two calendar year under the Corporation of Chennai, they made applications before the respective 1st respondent seeking Conferment of Permanent Status in Case Nos.2180 of 2015 and E/1958 of 2016. The respective 1st respondent, passed the impugned orders dated 27.03.2017 Page No.6 of 10
and 27.09.2017, directing the Corporation of Chennai to regularize the services of the respective private respondents. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective 1st respondent should have consider that in present case the necessary parties, namely the contractors, who engaged the respective private respondents 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 respective 1st respondent ought to have seen that the respective private respondents are not workmen under the Corporation in order to get the benefit of permanency in Corporation. Accordingly, he prays for allowing these writ petitions.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective private respondents submitted that some of the documents which are available with the respective private respondents were not marked before the respective 1st respondent. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the respective 1st respondent for letting fresh evidence.
Page No.7 of 10
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the respective 1st respondent, this Court may direct the respective 1st respondent to decide the conferment of permanent status upon satisfaction of 480 days of service of the respective private respondents 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 orders dated 27.03.2017 and 27.09.2017 passed by the respective 1st respondent in Case Nos.2180 of 2015 and E/1958 of 2016 and the matter is remanded to the respective 1st respondent for fresh consideration. While re-considering the same, the respective 1st respondent is directed to permit the parties to let-in fresh evidence and upon perusing the entire documents and on satisfaction that respective private respondents have been in employment under the petitioners for a period of 480 days in two calendar years, the respective 1st respondent shall dispose of the cases, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page No.8 of 10
7. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To 1.The Inspector of Labour, Circle - 3, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
2.The Inspector of Labour, {Empowered as the Inspector under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981} Circle - 3, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.
4.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