The Exective Engineer v. Inspector Of Labour,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.17082, 17083 and 17084 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2015 W.P.(MD)No.17082 of 2015 1.The Executive Engineer, 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Assistant Engineer, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.
... Petitioners Vs 1.The Inspector of Labour, 2.V.K.Mariyappan 3.R.Manimaran 4.R.Sundar 5.P.Mariyappan 6.J.Mariyappan 7.K.Muppidathi 8.M.Balasubramanian 9.S.Jabherali 10.S.Ramar 11.M.Ramayya Pandian 12.S.Mani 13.R.Ramayya 14.R.Regupathi 15.R.Kartheesan 16.P.Subramanian 17.A.Sakthivel 18.K.Mathiyalagan 19.S.Murugan 20.M.Karuppasamy 21.M.Muthukumar
22.R.Murugaiah 23.M.Kasipandi 24.C.Panneerselvam 25.V.Anburaj 26.K.Samydurai 27.A.K.Mariyappan 28.K.Balamurugan 29.R.Velmurugan 30.M.Madhavan 31.S.Durairaj 32.R.Thirumoorthy 33.K.Ganeshan 34.P.Manikkam 35.S.Madasamy 36.R.Ponnaiah 37.S.Murugan 38.S.Ayyadurai 39.V.Madajevan 40.S.Ganapathi 41.S.Muthukutti 42.S.Harikrishnan 43.P.Thangadurai 44.R.Ramar 45.K.Maduraiveeran 46.V.Krishnan ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.3581/2010 to 3644/2010 dated 23.04.2015 only with respect to the List I of the order and the Labours who had been made as respondents 2 to 46 herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Porkodi Karnan For R1 : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu Additional Government Pleader For : Mr.Veerakathiravan, R2,3,5&8 Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Karuppasamy W.P.(MD)No.17083 of 2015 1.The Executive Engineer, 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tirunelveli District, Valliyur.
3.The Assistant Engineer, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District,Valliyur.
... Petitioners Vs 1.The Inspector of Labour, 2.S.Ramachandran 3.Varadharaj 4.S.Essakimuthu 5.P.Anandaraj 6.R.Rengakrishnan 7.R.Ravikumar 8.J.Rajagopal 9.C.Nagarajan 10.C.Dhanapal 11.E.Muthaiyya 12.D.Easudhas 13.S.Balasubramanian 14.V.Subramanian 15.M.Premkumar 16.V.Iyyamperummal 17.M.Muthaiyya 18.A.Nambirajan 19.D.Saminathan 20.S.Alagusundharam 21.S.Vijayakumar 22.L.Madhu 23.M.Manikkam 24.C.Arumugam 25.G.Rayappan 26.A.Uikkattan 27.P.Paldurai 28.S.Subashkanna 29.P.Gopalaakrishnan 30.M.Jebashteen Samuvelraj 31.S.Jeyapal 32.V.Ganeshan 33.P.Murugan 34.E.Balasubramanian 35.A.Deniyal Abraham 26.P.Balasubramanian 37.S.Lakshmanaperummal 38.Sudalaimani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.11352/2010 to 11356/2010 and 13298/2010 to 13304/2010 and 13006/2010 to 13310/2010 and 13608/2010, 3728/2010 to 3736/2010, 3758/2010 to 3784/2010 and 11350/2010, 11351/2010 dated 23.04.2015 only with respect to the List I of the order and the labours who had been made as respondents 2 to 38 herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Porkodi Karnan For R1 : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu Additional Government Pleader For R2, R3,R5 & R8 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Karuppasamy W.P.(MD)No.17084 of 2015 1.The Executive Engineer, 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tirunelveli District,Sankarankoil 3.The Assistant Engineer, Tirunelveli District,Sankarankoil ... Petitioners Vs 1.The Inspector of Labour, 2.S.Selvendurai 3.Maruthapandian 4.M.Karthik Pandian 5.Joshap 6.K.Pponraj 7.P.Mariappan 8.A.Ramaraj 9.K.Paalraj 10.K.Sithar
11.S.Maharajan 12.K.S.Mariappan 13.M.Kaleeraj 14.P.Vellapandi 15.K.Murugan 16.K.Nheru 17.M.ChandraSekar 18.C.Muthusamy 19.M.Maadasamy 20.R.Udaiyar 21.K.Mahendran 22.G.Maniraj 23.L.Solarajan 24.E.Pillaiyar 25.P.Kariyamal 26.P.Alagirisamy 27.N.Ganeshan 28.R.Kaleechamy 29.S.Gandhi 30.P.Kanipandian 31.A.Wilson 32.V.Murugan 33.M.Sundharraj 34.M.Mariappan 35.S.Chokalingam 36.A.Mohamad Ekpal 37.V.Murugan 38.M.Balakrishnan 39.P.Muthupandi 40.M.Alageshan 41.L.Suresh 42.A.Chellapandian 43.P.Sendhurpandian 44.C.Muthupandian 45.K.Arumugakrishnan 46.R.Murugan 47.M.Raja 48.S.Palkarthik 49.K.Murugan 50.R.Pechikutti 51.A.Raju 52.E.Uchimakale 53.K.Santhanamari 54.Kompaiya 55.K.Ayyadurai 56.S.Muthukumar 57.A.Poolpandian 58.S.Esurajan 59.C.R.Kumar 60.I.Arasakani 61.S.Kottaisamy 62.M.Sunilkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.S.No.3645/2010 to 3723/2010 and 13296/10, 13305/10, 3778/12 to 3780/12 dated 23.04.2015 only with respect to the List I of the order and the Labours who had been made as respondents 2 to 62 herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Porkodi Karnan For R1 : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu Additional Government Pleader For R2, R3,R5 & R8 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Karuppasamy
ORDER
TWAD Board is the petitioner in these writ petitions. The private respondents in these writ petitions filed petitions before the Inspector of Labour, Tirunelveli, seeking conferment of status of permanency. The first respondent took the petitions filed by the private respondents on file and issued notice to the writ petitioner management. The writ petitioner management filed its counter. After considering the contentions raised on either side, the first respondent passed orders on 23.04.2015 granting the status of permanency on the claimants. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the first respondent, these three writ petitions have been filed. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants / workmen.
3.The learned standing counsel reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. In these writ petitions it has been contended that the TWAD cannot be brought within the purview of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. But then, this contention has to be rejected because the issue is no longer res integra. It was held as early as in the decision reported in 1993-1-L.W-283 in the case of Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, represented by Superintending Engineer, Santhi Nagar, Tirunelveli. vs. The Secretary, Kovilpatti Water supply scheme Mainenance Workers Union, 16-C, V.O.C.Nagar, Second Street, Kovilpatti and another that TWAD Board would fall within the purview of TamilNadu Act 46 of 1981.
4.This Court posed a specific question to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether the board had obtained the employer's license
as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It appears that during the relevant period no such license was obtained by the Board. Therefore, the private respondents herein will have to be construed only as the direct employees of the Board and not as contract labour. 5.The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the claimants had put in 480 days of service in 24 consecutive calender months. The learned Standing Counsel asserted that no convincing material has been placed to establish the claim of the workmen. Again I am unable to agree with the said contention. The statutory authority namely the first respondent herein had perused the log book in which entries have been made by the workmen. It is relevant to note here that the engineers of TWAD have also counter signed in the said log book. If the said TWAD has challenged the genuineness of the log book, then it would be a different matter. The genuineness of the log book and the entries made therein have not been questioned.
6.This Court has to necessarily concur with the findings of the first respondent. This is essentially a question of fact. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with such a finding. Such a finding has been rendered in favour of the claimants after taking into consideration all the relevant materials. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in these writ petitions, by which the status of permanency has been conferred on the claimants/ private respondents.
7.The claimants claimed to have worked for 480 days within a period of 24 consecutive calender months from 2003 to 2006. The petitions were filed only in the year 2010. The order itself was passed only on 23.04.2015. Therefore, even while sustaining the orders impugned in these writ petitions, this Court must necessarily hold that the claimants would be entitled for the consequential and monetary benefits from the date when the impugned orders were passed, ie., from 23.04.2015.
8.With this clarification, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
To The Inspector of Labour, • 1 CC TO Mr.PORKODI KARNAN , ADVOCATE IN SR No.98056. • + 5 CCs TO Mr.B.KARUPPASAMY , ADVOCATE IN SR No.98151. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.98080. PNN DS SKN SAR1 14 12 2018 8P 9C W.P.(MD)Nos.17082, 17083 and 17084 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2015 29.11.2018