The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right of a contract labourer to permanent status after completing 480 days of service in a period of 24 calendar months, and the obligation of the employer to abide by the orders of the competent authority and the court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Memo No.780/Adm- II/A.1/2011 dated 02.01.2012 insofar as the order deems the petitioner as fresh appointment against the order of the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment Status to Workmen) Act 1981 dated 02.01.2001 as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially directing the 1st respondent to confer permanent status to the petitioner from the date of her joining in the service of the 3rd respondent entitling the service benefits of promotion, back wages, continuity of service, family pension benefits and all other concomitant service benefits eligible to the petitioner.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent / the Superintending Engineer, Purchase and Administration in Memo No. 780/Adm-II/A.1/2011 dated 02.01.2012 insofar as the order deems that the petitioner had been appointed afresh which was contrary to the earlier order of the competent authority dated 02.01.2001 established under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent, the Chief Engineer  (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Corporation Limited, Chennai, to confer permanent status to the petitioner from the date of she joined in the service of the 3rd respondent together with all attendant benefits.

2. The writ petitioner herein, was originally employed as contract labourer under the 3rd respondent from the year 1997 - 1998. She claimed that she had put in service for more than 480 days, which would qualify her category as permanent employee. Since employment was not regularized, she had approached the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Status to Workman) Act, 1981. The competent authority had passed an order on 02.01.2001. The said order was passed after examining the counter filed by the respondent, the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin. The competent authority also noted the deposition of the petitioner herein, that she had completed 480 days of continuous service. There were some disputes relating to the continuance of service, but it had been recorded that the respondents had finally agreed that the petitioner had worked in their establishment and had put in continuous service of 480 days in 24 calender months.

3. This is the crucial aspect, which has to be examined. The contract worker who had worked for 480 days in two calender years or in 24 months, is normally expected to be regularized in that particular post, in view of the continuous service. If it is not so done, there is an authority which is established under the aforementioned Act. The said authority, the Deputy Inspector of Factories, Thirunelveli, by proceedings in R.O.C. No.A1 / 3266 / 2000 passed orders on 02.01.2001, after examining the rival contentions and giving opportunity to both the sides. Finally, the petitioner''s application was allowed and a direction was given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as permanent worker in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin.

4. This order had attained finality, consequent to it being examined by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34699 of 2002, which had been preferred by the respondents herein. The learned Single Judge in the course of the order, took note of earlier observations of the Division Bench in a similar matter, wherein a similar issue was raised in W.A.No.311 of 2004, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department and others), and after reducing the ratio therein was of the firm opinion that the order of the authority need n