P.Rajangam, S/O.Poosari, v. The Deputy Director,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD)No.16484 of 2017 P.Rajangam : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Theni, Theni District.

2.The Inspector of Labour, Theni, Theni District.

3.The Commissioner of Milk, Production and Dairy Development, Chennai - 51.

4.Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Madurai - 20.

: Respondents 1/7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.KA.No.2606/Tho.Vu/2013-7 dated 25.11.2013 and consequential order passed by the first respondent in Ref.No.AA/291/2016 dated 28.09.2016, quash the same insofar as denying the benefit accrued out of the order passed by the second respondent bearing No.A/1097/10 dated 15.04.2011 and consequently to direct the respondents to confer status upon the petitioner by regularizing his services as permanent workman in the cadre of regular Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs.4800-10000 + Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- with effect from 31.10.2010, the date on which he completed 480 days of service in terms of the order passed by the second respondent in Ref.

No.A/1097/10 dated 15.04.2011 and pay all consequential benefits including arrears of difference in salary and all other attendant service benefits and to award costs. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthik for Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate For Respondent No.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the fourth respondent and the consequential order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's representation to the second respondent to initiate criminal prosecution against the fourth respondent under Section 6 of 'the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981' [hereinafter 'the Act'] for contravening the provisions of the Act.

2.According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be made permanent as per the order of the second respondent dated 15.04.2011 with effect from 31.10.2010, the date on which he completed 480 days. According to him, he is bound to be treated on par with a regular Muzdoor but according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent failed to treat the petitioner as permanent worker and fixed his salary at 20% below the scale of regular workmen in the post of Mazdoor. According to the petitioner, his services ought to be regularised from the date on which he completed 480 days of service. According to him, since he completed 480 days of service on 30.10.2010, he is entitled to be treated as permanent from the said date.

3/7

3.According to the petitioner, since the fourth respondent has regularised the services of the petitioner only from 11.11.2013, though according to him he is entitled to be regularised from 31.10.2010, the respondents 1 & 2 are empowered to prosecute the fourth respondent for violating the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the second respondent conferring permanent status to the petitioner. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned order with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner but by a cryptic order, the first respondent has directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Labour Court.

4.Counter affidavit has also not been filed in this writ petition till date, eventhough the Writ Petition is of the year 2017. Since the consequential order of the first respondent dated 28.09.2016 is a non-speaking order, both the orders namely the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the fourth respondent wherein the petitioner's service was regularised only from 11.11.2013 though the petitioner claims that he ought to have been regularised from 31.10.2010 itself and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 28.09.2016 directing the petitioner to approach the Labour Court have to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 4/7

5.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the fourth respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent dated 28.09.2016 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The fourth respondent is directed to pass a speaking order within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to file his written submissions before the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent is directed to consider the same in the final order to be passed by them. 6.With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.09.2024 Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR 5/7

To 1.The Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Theni, Theni District.

2.The Inspector of Labour, Theni, Theni District.

3.The Commissioner of Milk, Production and Dairy Development, Chennai - 51.

4.The General Manager, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, Madurai - 20.

6/7

ABDUL QUDDHOSE , J.

MR 05.09.2024 7/7