The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Management to submit the particulars of the workmen to the Authority concerned and the distinction between 'contract of service' and 'contract for service'.

JUDGMENT :

S.Vaidyanathan, J.

The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.33787 of 2012.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as "Management" (appellants herein) and "workmen" (represented by Union).

3. The workmen have been engaged by the Management and that they have rendered more than 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and that they have been deemed to have attained permanent status. They have approached the Authority seeking permanent status.

4. The Management took a stand that the workmen have been paid by the Maistry, and that there is no direct privity of contract between the Contractor and the workmen in terms of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Management pleaded before the Authority concerned that they had not maintained any record and that these employees are only casual and temporary employees.

5. Though it has been contended by the Management that these workmen have not been recruited in terms of the said Regulation, no evidence had been let in and no document has also been produced by the Management to establish their stand. Moreover, duty is cast upon the Management to submit the particulars of the workmen to the Authority concerned, more so, in the light of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, by forwarding the list of casual/temporary employees and the number of days worked by them.

6. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Management that, at present, only 3 employees are working and some of them have died. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others) reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, heavily condemned the back door entry in public employment and thus, the employees are not entitled to any relief and the order of the learned Single Judge, confirming the order of the Authority conferring permanent status, needs to be interfered with.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has produced a list showing the number of employees working as on date and some of them died and the said list is extracted below:

"8. I am advised to submit that the order dt.02.11.2021 passed by the Learned Judge of Hon'ble High Court, Madras by confirming the order dt. 27.02.2012 passed by the Inspector of Labour (i.e., Twentieth respondent) in RC.No.C/3500/2008 is not maintainable in the light of the order dt.10.04.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court held that in Public employment any person engaged/appointed without following the applicable service rules, cannot claim permanency or regularisation, even if they put long years of service and they cannot seek any preference when others are aspiring for employment in Public Service. The Apex Court further held that regularisation further more cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are adhoc in nature and it was also held that the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularisation.

9. I submit that out of 19 casual labourers (i.e. from respondents 1 to 19 herein) only 3 are doing the casual work now 9 persons have not reported for duty for a long time and 7 persons died in the meantime as detailed below :