The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the amended Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which introduced a three-year limitation period for filing Industrial Disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Vellore District, vide in I.D.No.92 of 2013, dated 29.01.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a Mazdoor on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits.)

1. The Award dated 29.01.2015 passed in I.D.No.92 of 2013 is sought to be quashed in the the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was engaged as a Contract Labourer by the respondent Electricity Board in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Kethandapatti, Vaniyampadi from 05.06.1995. The writ petitioner states that he was continuously employed as Contract Labourer and working without any break in service. The petitioner states that he was identified as Contract Labourer as on 08.08.1998 and was paid ex-gratia payment. Along with the petitioner, one Thiru.R.Dilli, Thiru.K.Raman, Thiru.R.Kumar, Thiru.M.Ramesh, M.Arul and Thiru.K.Manokaran were also employed as Contract Labourers. The petitioner along with others were identified as on 30.01.2005. Under these circumstances, Mr.Dhandapani, along with 81 others, including the petitioner filed a petition before the Inspector of Labour, Thiruvannamalai under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1987, claiming permanency. The Inspector of Labour also passed an award on 24.03.2003 and directed the Board to grant permanent status to the petitioner and 76 others from the respective date of completion of 480 days. The respondent filed W.P.No.18863 of 2004, challenging the Award of the Inspector of Labour. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 06.07.2004 and the Writ Appeal No.3410 of 2004 was filed. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the petitioner met with an accident of electrocution on 16.05.2007 during the course of employment. He was taken to the Government Hospital by the Board officials and an FIR was registered. The petitioner made representations, requesting the authorities to initiate action against the board officials and further the petitioner was denied employment from 05.06.2007. In view of the fact that he was denied employment from 05.06.2007, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7571 of 2008 for a direction. During the pendency of the litigation, a 12(3) Settlement was agreed regarding the absorption of Contract Labourers. Consequently, the Board issued B.P.(FB).No.44 dated 06.09.2007. Meanwhile, the Writ Appeal No.1302 of 2004 etc., batch was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 24.10.2008, in view of the 12(3) settlement. After the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Electricity Board, the B.P.(FB).No.44 dated 06.09.2007 was implemented and Contract Labourers were absorbed.

3. The petitioner states that his case alone is discriminated despite the fact that he was identified as a Contract Labourer and paid ex-gratia payment. The petitioner was denied of employment from 05.06.2007 onwards. Thus, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.92 of 2013 before the Labour Court, Vellore. In view of the fact that the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in the year 2013, he had withdrawn the writ petition filed by him in W.P.No.7571 of 2008 on 25.09.2014. Thereafter, the Industrial Dispute was proceeded by the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 29.01.2015 mainly on the ground of delay. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition, challenging the said Award.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that for all purposes, the petitioner was identified as a Contract Labourer and therefore, he is entitled to avail a benefit of B.P.(FB).No.44 issued pursuant to the 12(3) Settlement. However, the writ petitioner met with an accident on electrocution and a criminal case was also re