The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Labour Inspector's powers to conduct summary enquiry and issue orders based on a clear finding of each workman's continuous service for 480 days in 24 calendar months under the Act of 1981.

JUDGMENT

Munishwar Nath Bhandari

Common Order:

The batch of writ petitions challenges the orders passed by the Labour Inspector under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [for brevity, "the Act of 1981"]. By the impugned orders, the Labour Inspector issued directions for grant of permanent status to the respondent employees from the date of completion of 480 days in 24 calendar months of their service.

2. The challenge to the said orders has been made on many grounds, but before addressing the issues raised by the petitioner and contested by the respondents, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the case.

3. It is a case where the union and employees made a claim before the Labour Inspector for grant of permanent status as they rendered continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months. The Labour Inspector caused an enquiry in pursuance to the claim and passed orders directing the petitioner corporation to confer permanent status to the members of the petitioner association and even individual employees who approached the Labour Inspector. It was after making adjudication in reference to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [for brevity, "the Act of 1970"]. It is alleged by the petitioner corporation that order has been passed without recording the finding on completion of 480 days continuous service in the preceding 24 calendar months by each employee giving out the days and months. On the aforesaid factual background, challenge to the orders passed by the Labour Inspector has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, now Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, submits that the Labour Inspector has passed the impugned orders exceeding his jurisdiction, while adjudicating the issue in reference to the Act of 1970. A dispute in reference to the Act of 1970 can be adjudicated only by the Industrial Adjudicator, which can be the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity, "the Act of 1947"]. However, ignoring the aforesaid, the Labour Inspector has recorded finding on the engagement of the respondent employees to be camouflage under the Act of 1970, so as to issue a direction for permanency of the employees. It was even ignoring the fact that the employees were not falling within the definition of "workman" and otherwise the Act of 1981 cannot override the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations framed pursuant to Sections 79(c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [for brevity, "the Act of 1948"]. In case of conflict between the Act of 1981 and the statutory Regulations, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations framed under the Act of 1948 would prevail.

5. It is further submitted that the Labour Inspector even ignored the settlement arrived between the parties on 10.8.2007 under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1947, despite being upheld by the Division Bench of this court by its judgment dated 24.10.2008. He added that the directions given under the impugned orders are going beyond the terms of the settlement and, thus, deserve to be interfered.

6. Coming to the facts of this case, it is stated that the petitioner Corporation has stopped engagement of contract labour in the year 2008 itself, i.e., after the settlement, and whoever were covered by the settlement had been extended the benefit and thereupon the employment was only on the basis of daily wages. The employees failed to produce any document to prove their engagement and continuous working for 480 days in 24 calendar months, yet based on surmises and conjectures, the impugned orders were passed by the Labour Inspector. It is also by ignoring the fact that a relationship between the employer and employee was required to extend the benefit of permanency under the Act of 1981. The members of the association and the employees were not i