Proper examination of the status of employees as workmen under the 1981 Act is essential before conferring permanent status.

1. W.P.Nos.3274 of 2004 and 32592 and 32593 of 2007 have been preferred by the Management, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Management), while W.P.Nos.9702 and 9703 of 2007 have been preferred by the contesting respondents in the writ petitions preferred by the management, who shall hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents.

2. The disposal of the writ petitions preferred by the contesting respondents depends upon the disposal of the writ petitions filed by the management and therefore, the managements writ petitions are being dealt with in the first instance.

3. The challenge in the writ petitions of the management is to the orders of the first respondent in those writ petitions dated 310. 2002 and 13. 2006, in and by which, the first respondent directed the management to confer permanent status on the contesting respondents as jewel appraisers in the management-society. The contesting respondents approached the first respondent by way of applications seeking its intervention by virtue of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Societies (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Act), on the ground that they have been in the services of the management for fairly a long period as jewel appraisers, that they have been paid wages by the management and since their services have not been made permanent, the first respondent should direct the management to confer permanent status on them. At the instance of the management, a written statement was filed contending that there was no master and servant relationship between the management and the contesting respondents, that the contesting respondents were all freelance jewel appraisers and therefore, they do not satisfy the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act. The first respondent by the orders impugned in these writ petitions by referring to certain documents filed on behalf of the contesting respondents and certain statements filed on behalf of the management, gave a finding that the contesting respondents were all workmen as defined under Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act and as per the details furnished by the management, since all of them had put in 480 days of working in a continuous period of 24 calendar months, they were entitled for conferment of permanent status. On that basis, the first respondent, in exercise of its powers under Section 5 read with 3(1) of the 1981 Act, directed the management to pass orders conferring such permanent status on the contesting respondents from the date when they completed 480 days of continuous service.

4. Assailing the orders of the first respondent, Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the management, in his submissions mainly relied upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in Mgt. Of Puri Urban Co-op.Bank v. M.Sahu & Anr. (1992 (2) LLJ 6) and in G.M., Indian Overseas Bank v. Workmen A.L.O.B. Employees Union (2006 Lab.I.C. 1641) and contended that the contesting respondents being jewel appraisers cannot be construed as workmen under the provisions of the 1981 Act and that they do not satisfy many of the requirements, which have been set out in the decision in the Indian Overseas Banks case (2006 Lab.I.C. 1641), cited supra. The learned counsel also contended that there was no cadre at all in the services of the management society as jewel appraisers and therefore, there was no question of granting any relief under the provisions of the 1981 Act to the contesting respondents. According to the learned counsel, the contesting respondents failed to establish that there was any master and servant relationship between the management and the contesting respondents and therefore, the first respondent was not justified in granting such relief of conferring permanent status on them.

5. As against the above submissions, Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearin