North Chennai Thermal Power Station
Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
The Chief Engineer, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Joint Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Tuticorin & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (MD)No. 18754 of 2017 & W.M.P. (MD)No. 15121 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Writ Petition - Labour Dispute - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 - BP-17, dated 28.04.1999 - The court upheld the validity of BP-17, which prescribed qualifications for absorbing contract laborers, and rejected the plea against it. The court also held that the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order under the Permanency Act and that the Labour Court alone is empowered. The court further ruled that the respondents were not entitled to permanency as they did not complete 480 days of service within the specified period and that the termination of their service was valid. The impugned order conferring permanency was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and contract laborers regarding the conferment of permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The respondents, who were contract laborers, sought permanency after being terminated by the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were not entitled to permanency as they did not complete 480 days of service within the specified period and that the termination of their service was valid. The impugned order conferring permanency was set aside.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of BP-17, the jurisdiction of the Labour Officer to pass an order under the Permanency Act, and the entitlement of the respondents to permanency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the validity of BP-17, rejected the plea against it, and ruled that the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order under the Permanency Act. The court also held that the respondents were not entitled to permanency as they did not complete 480 days of service within the specified period and that the termination of their service was valid.
Final Decision: The impugned order conferring permanency was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.E/568/2013 and to quash its order, dated 05.03.2014.)
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned Proceedings No. E/568/2013 dated 05.03.2014 of the 1st respondent.
2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was set up in the year 1957. The Board had also set up Thermal Stations in Ennore, North Madras and Mettur. By the proceedings of the Electricity Board, dated 23.05.1986, certain qualifications were prescribed for appointment in the category of Helpers and the same was challenged in Madras High Court and then in Honourable Supreme Court. The Supreme Court appointed Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice Khalid and the commission submitted a report. The implementation of the recommendation of the Khalid Commission had taken considerable amount of time. In the meanwhile, in order to put an end to the contract labours issue, the Board appointed an independent agency, namely “National Productivity Council” to conduct a study. Based on the report, additional post was created in the following four Thermal Power Stations, which are as follows:
| 1. | North Chennai Thermal Power Station | 423 |
| 2. | Ennore Thermal Power Station | 488 |
| 3. | Tuticorin Thermal Power Station | 363 |
| 4. | Mettur Thermal Power Station | 220 |
3. Thereafter Board Proceedings No.17, dated 28.04.1999, was issued wherein it was decided that the contract labourers who have worked directly in the Board for not less than 480 days between 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998 and continued to be in service as on that date may be absorbed. A committee was appointed in each of the four Thermal Power Stations to scrutinize the claims of the contract workmen and identify them. Thereafter the Board had abolished the engagement of contract workmen in all the four Thermal Power Stations from 01.05.1999 onwards and ineligible persons were discontinued from 28.10.1999. It was also directed that such of those contract workmen who were not absorbed may be engaged as casuals on a daily rate of wages. When once the process of absorption was completed, the Board directed all the four Power Stations including the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station to stop engaging contract workmen before 01.11.1999 and infact, the discontinuation of the engagement of casual workmen was done in the last week of 28.10.1999.
4. The affidavit further states that the Board was construed as industrial undertaking and in respect of such industrial undertaking, employees other than those working in the Clerical Department would not be governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act as held a Hon’ble Division Bench reported in 1961 (1) LLJ 297. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act is not applicable to the petitioner''s establishment since the Board is not a factory, not a planation, not a motor transport undertaking, not a Beedi Industrial establishment, not a catering establishment. Hence, the respondent workmen will not come under the definition of workmen as stated in the Act. In spite of the same, the respondents have approached the 1st respondent under Permanency Act.
5. The affidavit further states that the application which the respondents submitted before the authority is a belated one, since they have submitted after a period of 13 years from the date of their cessation of engagement. According to the Board, the list of contract workers as identified by the Committee in terms of BP-17 alone were entitled for absorption and such of those contract workmen who were working and not absorbed and were engaged directly as casual la
The court clarified the validity of BP-17, the jurisdiction of the Labour Officer, and the entitlement to permanency under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to W....
Inspector of Labour holds summary jurisdiction under Permanent Status Act to grant permanency to contract workers proving 480 days continuous employment; public employers must ensure fair practices a....
The court ruled that mere continuous service as contract labour does not establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for conferment of permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Act.
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming an employer-employee relationship, and regularisation and permanent absorption can only be granted in accordanc....
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....
Workmen completing 480 days of service are entitled to permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Act, regardless of subsequent classification as contract labourers.
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 s....
Permanent absorption of contract labourers is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The eligibility for permanent absorption is determined based on specific criteria outlined in th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contract labourers to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated for regularisation and permanent absorption, including....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top