JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 22.04.2015, passed in W.P.(MD) No.9465 of 2014, on the file of this Court.)

1. This writ appeal by the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited has been filed challenging the order, dated 22.04.2015, passed in W.P.(MD) No.9465 of 2014.

2. The appellant Corporation filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings, dated 07.03.2014, issued by the Inspector of Labour/first respondent, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (in short, “the Act”). By the said proceedings, the Authority conferred permanent status on the second respondent workman.

3. The appellant Management questioned the correctness of the said proceedings in the writ petition by contending that the second respondent workman was not in service as he was suspended from duty and the Inspector of Labour ought to have seen that a petition for regularizing his services is not maintainable in such circumstances. Further, it is contended that the second respondent was a reserve conductor and in terms of his engagement, his services will be considered for appointment as daily wage conductor on seniority basis and as and when vacancies arise in permanent post, if his services are found to be satisfactory, then there is a possibility of being absorbed as a regular employee. It is submitted that the conduct of the second respondent was far from satisfactory, he was unauthorisedly absent, abused the authorities and therefore, the question of making the second respondent a regular employee would not arise.

4. The second respondent workman contended that he was recruited to the post of conductor after his name was sponsored by Employment Exchange and joined duty on 21.02.2011 at Virudhunagar Branch and directed to work on daily wage basis. It was further submitted that he had completed 480 days, within a period of 24 calendar months reckoning the date of his first appointment as 21.02.2011. Though he had completed 480 days, the appellant Management did not regularize his services and therefore, he filed a petition under the said Act before the first respondent. It was further stated that in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant Management before the first respondent, it was contended that only when vacancies are available, the workman can be appointed on permanent basis.

5. The first respondent, after verifying the documents filed by both the parties and after hearing both sides, by order dated 07.03.2014, directed the appellant Management to regularize the services of the second respondent upon completion of 480 days computing the days from 21.02.2011. Further, it was contended that the contention raised before the Writ Court stating that punishment was imposed on the second respondent and therefore, he cannot be considered to be absorbed as permanent employee was examined by the first respondent and after taking note of the documents, the first respondent found that it was not a case of unauthorised absence, but, the second respondent had applied for leave.

6. Further, it is submitted that no disciplinary enquiry was conducted in spite of the direction issued in W.P.(MD) No.20513 of 2013, dated 18.12.2013. Further, it was contended that in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, “the I.D.Act”), dated 25.09.1986, the services of the employee, who has completed 240 days, has to be regularized and the second respondent had completed more than 900 duties as of August, 2014 and the challenge to the order of regularization is not sustainable.

7. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order. The learned Single Bench held that the appellant Management has not disputed the fact that the second respondent has completed 480 days of continuous