The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'actual proof' of continuous service for 480 days within 24 calendar months under the Permanency Act, the burden of proof on the claimant, and the inadmissibility of drawing adverse inferences against the employer for non-production of documents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in case No.E/3173/2010 and quash its order dated 15.10.2010.)

1. This writ petition is filed by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner/ Corporation) challenging the common award passed by the Labour Inspector vide order dated 15.10.2010.

2. Background to Writ Petition :

2.1. It may be relevant to set out the facts briefly. This is the second round of litigation before this Court with regard to proceedings under “The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(Conferment Of Permanent Status To Workmen) Act, 1981” (for the sake of brevity 'Permanency Act'). The respondents (unless specified otherwise the respondents refer to the workmen herein) were appointed as casual labourers in the Petitioner-Corporation from the year 1989 onwards. An award was passed by the Labour Inspector vide order dated 27.10.2000, whereby the respondents were conferred Permanent Status/absorbed into service of the Petitioner Corporation. The above award was challenged by the Petitioner Corporation before this Court in W.P.No.5981 of 2001. The same was set aside with a direction to the Labour Inspector to re-do the proceedings after granting the Petitioner-Corporation adequate opportunity. The Petitioner-Corporation was aggrieved by certain observations in particular para 7 of the order of this Court in W.P.5981 of 2001 and thus a Writ Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner-Corporation in Writ Appeal No.1960 of 2010.

2.2. It may be relevant to state that during the pendency of the above writ proceeding the respondents herein allegedly terminated. Pursuant thereto, the respondents challenged their termination before the Industrial Labour Court on the premise that Section 25 F of the 'Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' ( for the sake of convenience 'I.D.Act, 1947') was not complied with. The Labour Court, however, vide common order dated 27.05.2009 in I.D. Nos.20 to 41 of 2007 rejected the above contention of the Respondents/Workmen herein on the premise that the Respondents had stopped reporting to work on their own volition and therefore it would not constitute "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for Section 25 F of the said Act to get attracted. When the writ appeal in W.A.No.1960 of 2010 came up for hearing, in view of the subsequent developments viz., the disposal of proceeding under I.D. Act, 1947, the writ appeals were disposed by observing that it was open to both the parties to raise all contentions available to them

2.3. Pursuant to the above order of this Court in W.A.No.1960 of 2010 the Labour Inspector passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2010, wherein the Respondents were found entitled to be conferred permanent status on the basis of the following reasons:

a. The Petitioner-Corporation would qualify as an ‘Establishment’ within the meaning of Section 2 (3)(e) of the Permanency Act and

b. That the Respondents would qualify as "Workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (4) of the Permanency Act.

c. That the Respondents were entitled for conferment of permanent status in terms of Section 3 of the Permanency Act.

d. That the Respondents had submitted a statement containing month wise details of the number of days each workmen/ Respondents herein had worked over a period of 15 months between July 1996 to September 1997. Though it fell short of the prescribed period of 480 days of continuous service with the employer in 24 calendar months, it was found that the Respondents/workmen also worked during weekends on numerous occasions and thus concluded that the workmen/ Respondents herein satisfied the condition under Section 3 of the Permanency Act for conferment of permanent status viz., being