The legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, are binding and must be followed in the matter of permanent absorption or regularization or appointments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to implement the order passed by the Inspector of Labour, Thiruvarur in Pro.No.7167/2011 dated 11.02.2014.)

The lis on hand is filed to direct the first respondent to implement the award passed by the Inspector of Labour, Thiruvarur in Na.Ka.No.7167/2011 dated 11.02.2014 thereby conferring permanent status to the petitioners.

2. All the writ petitioners are working in the operation and maintenance of Combined Water Supply Schemes to Kollidam and other habitations under the Control of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TWAD' Board) as Electricians and Maintenance Assistant, ranging from 2006 to 2009.

3. The writ petitioners state that they have completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months, and therefore, they are entitled to get permanent status, as per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The writ petitioners had approached the competent authorities to regularize their services from the date of completion of 480 days of continuous service. In spite of several representations both oral and writing, the respondents have failed to look into the same. Consequently, the writ petitioners filed an application before the Inspector of Labour, Thiruvarur, for a direction to regularize their services from the date of completion of 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months. The Inspector of Labour considering the claim of the writ petitioners, passed an order granting permanent status with reference to the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Even after passing of the order of the competent authority, the respondents have not taken any action to implement the award. Several representations were sent. However, the efforts of the writ petitioners went in vain. Therefore, the writ petitioners were constrained to move the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners reiterated that the writ petitioners were employed as Electrician and Maintenance Assistants and they have completed 480 days of service. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. As per the order passed by the Inspector of Labour, the respondents ought to have regularized the services of the writ petitioners in the sanctioned post and in regular time scale of pay.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners made a submission that in similar circumstances, the case of other employees were considered by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.567 & 568 of 2018. The appeal filed by the TWAD Board was dismissed and the benefit of the order of the Inspector of Labour was granted in respect of other set of employees. Thus, the benefit of order of the Division Bench is to be extended to the writ petitioners in this writ petition also.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ TWAD Board disputed the contention by stating that several other judgments were also passed, rejecting the claim of the employees for grant of permanent status and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. By way of a counter, the learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that in respect of the orders passed under the provisions of the Permanent Status Act, the benefit was granted to other similarly placed persons in other judgments also and therefore, the present writ petition is to be allowed by issuing a direction to the respondents to implement the orders of the Inspector of Labour conferring the permanent status. In view of the counter submissions, this Court has to consider the following issues:

(i) Whether the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen), 1981 would be app