Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

This batch of writ appeals have been filed by the petitioners as well as the respondents in the writ petitions against the respective portion of the order passed by the learned single Judge. While W.A. Nos.1425 to 1434 of 2015 have been filed by the petitioners, W.A. Nos.360 to 369 of 2016 have been filed by the respondents in the writ petition against the order passed by the learned single Judge.

2. The appellants in W.A. Nos.1425 to 1434 of 2016, who are the petitioners, filed the writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents/authorities to regularise the service of the petitioners by fixing them in the scale of packers regularly employed in the respondent Corporation after making their service permanent with all consequential benefits.

3. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act'), was assented by the President of India on 5.8.1981 and came into force on 01.01.1982. The preamble to the Act applies to factories, plantations, motor transport undertakings, etc., of which the Government may, by notification declare to be an industrial establishment for the purpose of the Act. It is further stated therein that it does not apply to any industrial establishment until the expiry of two years from the date of its establishment and also to industrial establishments in which less than 20 workmen are employed on any day of the preceding 12 months. So also the Act is not applicable to workmen employed in industrial establishment engaged in the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other construction work, whether structural, mechanical or electrical. The preamble to the Act also provides for a workmen, who has put in continuous service of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months be conferred permanent status in the establishment. The Act provides that period of interruption in service due to sickness or authorised leave or accident or a legal strike, lock out, layoff effected under the standing orders or under an agreement, etc., should be included in computing the days on which the workman has worked in the establishment. During the said period of 24 calendar months for a period which does not exceed 3 months, a worker is not employed or discharged and in his place during such period a substitute is employed, such period shall also be counted as days on which the workmen has worked. In effect, the Act has been enacted for the purpose of safeguarding the workmen against unfair labour practices.

4. The facts, as admitted by the parties, are not in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/employees, the petitioners are said to be working as casual workers in the Godown of the respondent/Corporation, wherein the operation of packing essential commodities, groceries and non-groceries is carried out for sale, not only through retail outlets, but also through Amudham Departmental Stores. This process is being in operation since 1976. Its functioning is incidental to the functioning of the Corporation.

5. It is alleged that by adopting unfair labour practise, the petitioners service had been exploited by appointing them as casual labourers at low wages since the year 1987 or so. Referring to individual writ petitions, it is stated that the petitioners are working for more than 10 years as on the date of filing the writ petition in the packing section, etc.

6. Referring to the judgment of this Court in respect of regularisation of casual labourers based on the Act, while regularisation is sought for, incidentally wages similar to men is also sought for by the petitioners on the ground that the Corporation cannot fix a different pay scale, one for men and another for women, in view of the similar nature of work being carried out by both men and women and, therefore, there cannot be any discrimination in the scale of pay.

7. The above issues have been considered by the learn