The judgment establishes the obligation to comply with the Inspector of Labour's order under the Act and the application of the Act to the Corporation and its employees.

1. Leave to appeal by special leave granted.

THE APPEALS

2. The cross appeals, one by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited¹ [Hereinafter ‘the Corporation’] and the other by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union² [Hereinafter ‘the Union’] question the judgment and order dated 9th August, 2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 17133 of 2001 and 15241 of 2009 respectively. The position of the parties is in accordance with SLP (C) No. 30005 of 2019.

3. The impugned judgment came to be passed in Writ Petition No. 17133/2001 which was directed against order dated 31st March, 2001 of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, Chennai³ [Hereinafter ‘Inspector of Labour’] by which the claim of 53 workmen to be conferred permanent status in the Corporation was accepted, while the claim of 42 others was rejected.

4. W.P. No. 15241 of 2009 was filed by 22 out of the said 53 workmen seeking a writ of mandamus to be granted employment in the Corporation as per the order of the Inspector of Labour.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT

5. The questions that this Court is to consider are:

(i) Whether the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 would apply to the parties?

(ii) Whether by way of the impugned judgment, the suggestion to institute an ‘Industrial Disputes Claim’ questioning non-employment was sustainable, given that the Inspector of Labour had already passed orders in that regard?

FACTS IN BRIEF

6. The Corporation was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on 1st July, 1994. Its management is under the State of Tamil Nadu. It has employed various workmen in different capacities, including the appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2649 of 2020. Such employees had sought regularization under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.⁴ [Hereinafter ‘the Act’] Such representations being unsuccessful, two Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 17263 and 17147 of 1998 were preferred before the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

7. The learned Single Judge⁵ [Annexure P1, Page 61] vide judgment and order dated 21st July, 2000 passed the following directions:

“19..........

1. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) is applicable to the second respondent corporation.

2. The ‘Inspector’ having jurisdiction over the second respondent is directed to inspect and verify the records of the second respondent corporation and pass appropriated orders under Section 3 of the said Act with regard to the claim made by the members of the petitioner Union.

3. The ‘Inspector’ is also directed to consider the claim made by the petitioner Union regarding employment on Saturdays to the members of the petitioner Union.

4. The ‘Inspector’ is further directed to determine the above referred questions within three months from the date of a copy of this order after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties.

5. Till an order is passed by the ‘Inspector’ as stated above, status quo as on date shall be maintained by both parties. Writ petitions are allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. All the miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

8. Pursuant to the above order, the Inspector of Labour passed order dated 31st March, 2001⁶ [Annexure P3, Page 98] wherein the following issues were framed:

“ISSUES

(a) Whether the act pertaining to conferment of permanent status of Workmen could be made applicable to the respondent Establishment.

(b) Whether the authorized office under the aforesaid act being Labour Inspector has got the authority to try this case?

(c) If, the respondent’s Management is covered by the Jurisdiction of the aforesaid Act what is the nature of relief that could be awarded to the petitioners?”

9. The Inspector of Labour concluded that G. Sumathi and 52 other workmen were in the service