Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tiruvannamalai – Appellant
Versus
C. Chandrasekaran & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16787 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 06-06-2023
Industrial Establishments Act - Permanency Status - The court upheld the grant of permanency status to the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, based on the requirement of continuous work for 480 days in a period of twenty-four calendar months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order granting permanency status to the respondent under the Industrial Establishments Act, claiming that the respondent had not worked continuously for the required period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had worked continuously for more than 600 days in twenty-four calendar months, meeting the requirement for permanency status under the Act. The court relied on previous judgments and upheld the grant of permanency status to the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent had fulfilled the requirement of continuous work for the specified period under the Industrial Establishments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by previous judgments of Division Benches, which consistently held that a person who has worked continuously for the required period is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the grant of permanency status to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order made in “LANGUAGE”2390/2012 dated 05.02.2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent/Inspector of Labour, Tiruvannamalai, and to quash the same.)
1. The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Inspector of Labour, Tiruvannamalai, dated 05.02.2014.
2. The Inspector of Labour, Tiruvannamalai, by impugned order has granted the status of permanency to the 1st respondent invoking the power vested in him under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Cylinder Delivery Boy on the rolls of the writ petitioner. The test under Section 3(1) of the said Act is that a person should have worked continuously for 480 days in a period of twenty-four calendar months in an industrial establishment. The Inspector of Labour has come to a conclusion that from 30.06.1997 till 30.06.1999, the 1st respondent had continuously worked for a period of 600 days and therefore, he is entitled to permanency.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such a finding is erroneous and there is no such post available in the office of the petitioner.
5. It is not open to the petitioner to urge this plea because under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this court in Regional Manager, Tiruvannamalai v. S.Ramesh and others [W.A.No.1002 of 2018 dated 26.02.2019] had held that a person, who has worked continuously for a period of 480 days in twenty four calendar months, is entitled to be given the benefit of the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The above said order had become final. Apart from that, this view taken in the above said judgement, finds reflection in a subsequent judgement of another Division Bench of this Court in Regional Manager, TNCSC, Vellore v. D.Sekar [W.A.No.1233 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015]. As the Division Benches of this courts have consistently taken the view against the petitioner, especially, when the authority has given a categoric factual finding that the petitioner has worked continuously for more than 600 days in twenty four calendar months in the establishment, I find no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, a person who has worked continuously ....
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....
The absence of an employer-employee relationship at the time of application under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act renders the claim for permanent status unsustainable.
Employees who have accepted regularization through a 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are precluded from subsequently raising belated claims for retrospective permanent statu....
Employees regularized under an Industrial Disputes Act 12(3) settlement cannot seek retrospective permanent status after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as such claims are considered stale and i....
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
