Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.K. Misra, K. Kannan, JJ.
Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nagapattinam and Others
Versus
Inspector of Labour, Pedari Koil Street, Thiruvarur and Others
W.A. No. 1302 of 2003, W.P. No. 45517 of 2002, W.P. Nos. 46964, 46965, 46966, 46967 and 46968 of 2002, W.P. No. 46996, 46997, 46998 46999 of 2002, W.P. Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2003, W.P. No. 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138 of 2003, W.P.139., 140 and 141 of 2003 W.P. Nos. 142, 143, 144 and 145 of 2003 W.P. No. 241 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 315, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376 of 2003, W.P. No. 46612, 46789, 46915, 47063 of 2002, W.P. No. 322, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 327, 8215, 8245 10939, 12029 of 2003, 12033 and 12034, W.P. Nos. 47037, 47039 of 2002, W.P. No. 14405 and 14408 of 2003 W.A. No. 1593 of 2004, W.A. No. 381 of 2003, W.A. No. 1604 of 2004 W.A. Nos. 2268, 2331, 2344 and 2396, 2428, 2468, 2537, 2538, 2578, 2618 of 2004, W.A. No. 783 of 2005 and W.A. Nos. 444, 445 and 446 of 2002, W.A. No. 2428 and 2429 of 2003, W.A. No. 2329 of 2004 W.A. No. 2108 of 2004, W.A. No. 2482, 2483, 2117, 2413, 2506, 1574, 2250 2270, 2192, 2487, 2391, 2362, 2109, 2361, 2795, 2397, 2430, 2332 3832, 4166, 3276 of 2004, W.A. No. 821, 242, 653, 820, 1093, 372, 986, 996 of 2005, W.A. No. 3815, 3211, 3608, 3210 of 2004, W.A.1039 of 2005, 640 of 2005, W.A. No. 3733, 3949 of 2004, W.A. No. 521 of 2005 W.P. No. 2890, 3551, 2368, 2416, 2440, 2448, 2450, 2469, 2559, 2610, 2702 and 2825 and 3810 of 2004, W.A.182 of 2006, W.A.3628 of 2004 and W.A. No. 3851 of 2004, W.A. No. 2398 of 2004, W.P. No. 12627, 12828, 12629, 12630, 12631, 12632, 12633, 12634, 12635, 12635, 12637 and 12638, 21909, 21992 of 2004, 37765, 37766, 37767, 37768 of 2004, W.P. No. 8217, 13819, 13820, 13821, 13822, 13823, 13824, 13825 and 13826 of 2005, W.P. No. 34129 of 2004, W.P. Nos. 4901, 5084, 10932, 13222 of 2003, 12608, 26404, 26409, 24411 of 2003, W.P. No. 8371, 17635, 19072, 21792, 22746, 23091, 25888, 25953, 26322, 26381, 27210, 27211, 27212 and 27213, 31039, 31042, 31625, 37916, 38613 of 2004, W.P. No. 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 3981, 5490, 5869 of 2005, W.P. No. 23661, 31576 of 2004, W.P. No. 15284, 5680 of 2005, W.P. No. 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593 and 1594 of 2000, W.P. No. 2817, 3744 5655, 6087, 6776, 6834 of 2005, 7143, 15272, 15792, 17366 of 2005, 19216, 19280, 23008, 24680, 36018, 37492, 37703 of 2005, W.P. No. 819 of 2006, 4624, 5837 of 2006, 17206, 45472 of 2006 W.P. No. 1684, 1791 of 2007, W.P. No. 5221 of 2006, W.P. No. 5573 of 2006, W.P. No. 32458 of 2006, W.P. No. 19663 of 2006, W.P. No. 17628, 18322, 18328, 19749, 19750, W.P. No. 23912, 21481, 21914 of 2004, 22568, 22594, 22678, 23916, 24008, 28924, 31457, 37693 of 2004, W.P. No. 11449 of 2002, W.P. No. 26106 of 2003, W.P. No. 26972 of 2003, W.P. No. 32994 of 2003, W.P. No. 5312 of 2005, W.P. No. 25827 of 2005, W.P. No. 25988 of 2005, W.P. No. 36246 of 2005, W.P. No. 15800 of 2005, W.P. No. 43471 of 2006, W.P. No. 27991 of 2007, W.P. No. 35868 of 2005, W.P. No. 26115 of 2001, W.P. No. 2533 of 2006, W.P. No. 3837 of 2006, W.P. No. 11078 of 2005, W.P. No. 19880 of 1999, W.P. No. 18402, 18403, 18404 and 18405 of 2008, W.P. No. 18855 & 18856 of 2008, W.P. No. 18900 of 2008, W.P. No. 33998 of 2007, W.P. No. 12105 of 2008, W.P. No. 5643 and 5644 of 2002, W.P. No. 598 of 2006, W.P. No. 1033 of 2006, W.P. No. 6541 of 2006, W.P. No. 2236 of 2006, W.P. No. 4146 of 2006, W.P. No. 6825 of 2006, W.P. No. 5593 of 2006, W.P. No. 144 of 2006, W.P. No. 27714, 27715 and 27716 of 2007, 4076 of 2006, 40078 of 2005, 37068 of 2006 W.P. No. 21885 of 2005, 1231 of 2000, 4214 of 2008 and 3870 of 2001 and 25592 of 2005, and miscellaneous petitions
Decided on : 24th October, 2008.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - ELECTRICITY BOARD - SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - BOARD PROCEEDINGS - INTERPRETATION - LABOUR INSPECTORS' ORDERS - ENFORCEMENT - ITI TRAINED PERSONS' CLAIMS - PERMANENT STATUS - TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (CONFERMENT OF PERMANENT STATUS) ACT, 1981 - APPLICABILITY - WRIT PETITIONS - DISMISSAL - APPEALS - DISPOSAL.
Fact of the Case:
The batch of cases involved three broad categories: (i) Writ petitions challenging the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.8.2007 between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Trade Unions under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, on the ground that the settlement was in brazen violation of the decisions of Supreme Court relating to absorption of contract labour in earlier proceedings involving the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; (ii) Validity of Board proceedings, 36 and 37 of the Administrative Branch dated 29.10.2005 prescribing the modes of appointment of mazdoor through their absorption and (iii) Enforcement of orders of Labour Inspectors and the claims of workers, who seek for permanent status and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the settlement entered into by the board with workmen and union was valid and enforceable, subject to the condition that the claims of ITI trained workmen that the Regulation demands for the post of 'helpers' are not discarded. The Court also held that the Board proceedings 36 and 37 of the Administrative Branch dated 29.10.2005 were valid and enforceable. The Court further held that the claims of persons before the Labour Inspectors which have been allowed and who have come before this Court seeking for issue a mandamus for enforcement will now be considered under the 18(1) settlement. The Court also held that the claims of the workmen in W.P. No. 1033 of 2006 and the connected batch will not stand affected by the decision of this Court and the Labour Court will decide on their claims in I.D. No. 106 of 2003 in the light of what the Court has observed, insofar as they are relevant and independently of the same on factual issues whether they have been directly employed by the Electricity Board or not.
Issues: 1. Validity of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.8.2007 between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Trade Unions under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 2. Validity of Board proceedings, 36 and 37 of the Administrative Branch dated 29.10.2005 prescribing the modes of appointment of mazdoor through their absorption. 3. Enforcement of orders of Labour Inspectors and the claims of workers, who seek for permanent status and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The settlement entered into by the board with workmen and union was valid and enforceable, subject to the condition that the claims of ITI trained workmen that the Regulation demands for the post of 'helpers' are not discarded. 2. The Board proceedings 36 and 37 of the Administrative Branch dated 29.10.2005 were valid and enforceable. 3. The claims of persons before the Labour Inspectors which have been allowed and who have come before this Court seeking for issue a mandamus for enforcement will now be considered under the 18(1) settlement. 4. The claims of the workmen in W.P. No. 1033 of 2006 and the connected batch will not stand affected by the decision of this Court and the Labour Court will decide on their claims in I.D. No. 106 of 2003 in the light of what the Court has observed, insofar as they are relevant and independently of the same on factual issues whether they have been directly employed by the Electricity Board or not.
Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the 18(1) settlement will stand dismissed, except to the extent mentioned in paras 23 and 24 above. Age relaxation, wherever necessary to accommodate them shall be given. Similarly, the writ petitions challenging the board proceedings 36 and 37 of the Administrative Branch dated 29.10.2005 will also stand dismissed. The claims of persons before the Labour Inspectors which have been allowed and who have come before this Court seeking for issue a mandamus for enforcement will now be considered under the 18(1) settlement. The writ petitions filed by the Electricity Board challenging the orders of the Labour Inspectors will now be dismissed as infructuous having regard to the 18(1) settlement. The appeals filed by the board against the decision of the learned single will also stand dismissed. The claims of the workmen in W.P. No. 1033 of 2006 and the connected batch will not stand affected by the decision of this Court and the Labour Court will decide on their claims in I.D. No. 106 of 2003 in the light of what we have observed, insofar as they are relevant and independently of the same on factual issues whether they have been directly employed by the Electricity Board or not. The writ petitions and writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
K. KANNAN, J.
I. Three Categories Requiring Adjudication:
This batch of cases are identified as falling within three broad categories: (i) Writ petitions challenging the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.8.2007 between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Trade Unions under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, on the ground that the settlement is in brazen violation of the decisions of Supreme Court relating to absorption of contract labour in earlier proceedings involving the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; (ii) Validity of Board proceedings, 36 and 37 of the Administrative Branch dated 29.10.2005 prescribing the modes of appointment of mazdoor through their absorption and (iii) Enforcement of orders of Labour Inspectors and the claims of workers, who seek for permanent status and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
2. The three categories seem to confluence to a single stream to catch our attention to the most vital starting point when the Electricity Board set down qualifications for the posts of "helpers" and other lower categories of employees which came to be challenged by a batch of writ petitions before this Court, before ultimately traversing up to the Supreme Court when Mr. Justice KHALID (Retired) was appointed to examine and recommend the criteria to be applied to "helpers" covered by the judgment of this Court under appeal to the Supreme Court and to suggest if relaxation of their qualifications of National Trade Certificate (NTC) /National Apprenticesip Certificate (NAC) prescribed by the Board could be made in respect to the said helpers having regard to their experience.
II. Factors Leading To Appointment Of Khalid Commission
3. It is a matter of public knowledge that the Electricity Board is involved in generation and distribution of electricity through hydro electric power, thermal power generation, gas turbines and windmill generation. While electricity board employed labour through sanctioned post for carrying out works directly connected with generation and distribution, it began employing unskilled persons for field work on nominal muster roll. The post of helpers were sanctioned only when they were required to assist the engineers and other staffs in the discharge of technical work.
4. Under the powers conferred under Section 79(C) and (K) of the Electricity Supply Act, the board framed its own service regulations which came into effect on 10.6.1967. Annexure-I to the Service Regulations enumerated various categories of employees for which posts could be created and appointments made. The regulations also stipulated qualifications required and the method of recruitment to such posts. The posts of Mazdoors which were in existence up to 1974 was abolished and all the jobs like, digging pits, carrying ladders, stringing of conductors, etc were being carried out by 'helpers'. Initially the qualifications prescribed for the post of 'helpers' was a mere pass in IV Standard with one year's practical experience in the type of work concerned. Later, the qualification was enhanced to VIII Standard with a year's experience. On 28.11.1980, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 1177 prescribing NTC (National Trade Certificate)/NAC (National Apprenticeship Certificate) as the qualification for the lowest post. Pursuant to this, the board entered in to a settlement with recognized Unions on 17.5.1984 which spelt out NTC/NAC as the prescribed qualification for the post of helpers. The Board agreed to fill up 7000 post of helpers by direct recruitment from amongst candidates possessing the qualifications as aforesaid. The service regulations were consequently amended by BP (FB) 38 dated 23.5.1986.
5. In the year 1988, there was a spate of writ petitions challenging the qualifications prescribed for the post of helpers and seeking for regularisation of the services of persons who had been working as helpers. The writ petitions upheld the board's power to e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
