ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to order conferment of permanent status to the writ petitioner as directed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 25.02.2011.

2. The petitioner states that he was working as a Contract Labourer in the 1st respondent Electricity Board for several years. The petitioner claims that he had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of service. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent to grant permanent status on par with other similarly placed persons. The petitioner states 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 petitioner, based on the services rendered by him as a Contract Labourer, filed a petition before the Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, and the Inspector of Labour passed an order on 25.02.2011, granting the benefit of permanent status in favour of the writ petitioner. However, the said order has not been implemented by the respondent Board. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition for a direction to implement the orders of the Inspector of Labour.

3. The respondent Electricity Board disputed the contention on the ground that the name of the writ petitioner 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 respondent Board 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 respondent/Board stated that for grant of permanent absorption, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is bound by their own service regulations, which will prevail over the general laws. The legal principle to be followed is that, whenever there is a special enactment regarding the service regulations or rules of a "State", then the said service regulations will prevail over the general laws. The service regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board confirmed under Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 will hold good in respect of the grant of benefits to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the said regulations will prevail over all other general laws. Thus, the very application of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, made by the workman is untenable. The provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act would not be applicable in such cases, where the special enactments are in force.

6. In the present case, service conditions were formulated by the Board by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Therefore, the service regulations framed under the special statute will prevail over the general laws and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to workman) Act, 1981, is not applicable in respect of the employees, who all are claiming to be the servants of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.