The Conferment of Permanent Status Act did not apply to the employees of the Board, and the Labour Court erred in granting retrospective regularisation without adjudication of disputed issues.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent made in order dated 14.10.2015 in CP No.148 of 2008 and quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. The orders dated 14.10.2015 passed by the second respondent- Labour Court in CP Nos.148 to 170 of 2008, are under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. The writ petitioner is Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. The first respondent was working in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply Board. The employee was initially appointed by the Local Body/ Panchayat Union and on account of inclusion of the said Panchayat Union within the urban areas, the employees appointed by the Local Bodies on temporary daily wage basis were absorbed by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. They became the employees of the writ petitioner- Board and they continue to serve as daily wage employees. Subsequently, pursuant to the Government Orders, the employees were granted consolidated pay salary and the said salary was periodically enhanced. Finally, the time scale of pay was granted to these employees considering their long services and based on the Government Orders. In this regard, the benefits were also granted to the employees who were transferred from Local Bodies to the writ petitioner-Board.

3. These daily wage employees, who were absorbed in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and subsequently, brought under consolidated pay salary and the time scale of pay filed petitions before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The petition was filed under Section 33-C(2) mainly on the ground that the first respondent-employee has completed 480 days of continuous service on 18.07.1976 within the period of 24 calender months as per Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and thus their services should be deemed to have been made permanent from the date of his appointment as per mandatory provisions of the above Act, 1981.

5. The basis for the claim was relying on Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Accordingly, the first respondent sought for the relief to grant regularisation and permanent absorption in the Board's services from the date on which he completed 480 days of service as temporary employee.

6. The Labour Court conducted an enquiry and accepted the claim of the first respondent-employee and passed an order granting the relief of retrospective regularisation from the date on which the first respondent completed 480 days of service with all consequential monetary benefits.

7. The said order of the Labour Court is under challenge in these writ petitions.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Board contended that the order per se is untenable, as there was no adjudication of disputed issues between the parties by way of an industrial dispute. In the absence of any such adjudication of disputed issues, no petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is entertained and thus the Labour Court erroneously assumed the jurisdiction and entertain the petition and granted the relief and thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Board is of an opinion that the conferment of permanent status is inapplicable to the employees of the Board. General Acts are not applicable, since the Special Rules governing the service conditions are very much in force as far as the petitioner-Board is concerned.

10. When the Board adopted the Government Service Rules for its employees and the Board being the State, within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the said service conditions and rules alone are applicable to the employees working in the Board and the general Act is not applicable. The general statutes and principles cannot be applied. Therefore, the bene