The main legal point established is that the service regulations formulated under a special statute prevail over general laws, and the Conferment of Permanent Status Act was held inapplicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in W.P.Nos.2479, 2481 & 2482 of 2014: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 31.12.2013, as the petitioner having been declared as accomplished Contract Labourer under Section 3(i) of The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 as per the proceedings in File No.E/1797/I/2013, dated 02.12.2013, of The Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Madurai & Competent Authority.

Prayer in W.P.No.2480 of 2014: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 31.12.2013, as the petitioner having been declared as accomplished Contract Labourer under Section 3(i) of The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 as per the proceedings in File No.E/1797/II/2013, dated 01.12.2013, of The Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Madurai & Competent Authority.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petitions is for a direction to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners representations dated 31.12.2013, as the petitioners having been declared as accomplished Contract Labourer under Section 3(i) of The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 as per the proceedings in File No.E/1797/I/2013 dated 2.12.2013, File No.E/1797/II/2013, dated 01.12.2013, of The Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Madurai & Competent Authority.

2. The petitioners state that they were working as a Contract Labourer in the respondent Electricity Board for several years. The petitioners claim that they had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of service. Accordingly, the petitioners made representations to the respondents to grant permanent status on par with other similarly placed persons. The petitioners state that Justice Khalid Commission submitted a report recommending permanent absorption in respect of contract labourers, who served 480 days in 24 months. Pursuant to the report, the Committee short listed the eligible persons and accordingly, the benefit of permanent absorption was granted. The petitioners, based on the services rendered by them as a Contract Labourer, filed a petition before the competent authority under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, and the competent authority passed an order on 02.12.2013 & 01.12.2013, granting the benefit of permanent status in favour of the writ petitioner. However, the said order has not been implemented by the respondents. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petitions for a direction to implement the orders of the competent authority.

3. The respondents Electricity Board disputed the contention on the ground that the name of the writ petitioners did not figure in the list of Contract Labourers by Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission and therefore, the benefit of permanent absorption cannot be granted. The Respondent Electricity Board in respect of certain persons is unable to secure the records with reference to the work details and in fact, these contract labourers were engaged by the private contract labourers with whom, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board entered into an agreement to execute the works on behalf of the Electricity Board.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents reiterated that on verification of records, eligible contract labourers were identified and accordingly, the benefit of permanent absorption was granted as per 12(3) Settlement dated 10.08.2007, and the consequential Board Proceedings in B.P.(Chairman)No.9, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2008.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the r