IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Permanent Status Act and the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to appointments made in an illegal manner, and adherence to cadre strength and qualifications for appointments in co-operative societies is essential.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.04.2012 made in W.P.No.11189 of 2005.)

1. The present intra-court appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 17.04.2012 passed in W.P.No.11189 of 2005.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The writ petition was instituted challenging the order dated 30.09.2004, passed by the Inspector of Labour, an Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981.

3. The members of the 2nd respondent/Labour Union filed an application under the Permanent Status Act before the Inspector of Labour, who in turn conducted a summary proceedings and issued an order in favour of the Workmen under the Permanent Status Act. Thus, the management preferred a writ appeal to set aside the writ order.

4. The Writ Court considered the documents filed before the Inspector of Labour i.e., Exs.A10 to A12 being the attendance register and salary disbursement registers and formed an opinion that the workmen served in the appellant/society for more than 480 days and consequently, confirmed the order passed by the Inspector of Labour under the Permanent Status Act. Thus, the present writ appeal came to be instituted.

5. Mr. L.P. Shanmugasundaram, learned Counsel for the appellant/society mainly contended that the appellant is the Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Co-operative Societies Act will prevail over the Permanent Status Act being a special enactment and the service conditions of the employees of the Co-operative Societies are governed under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Thus, the Inspector of Labour has no authority to issue an order for permanency under the Permanent Status Act. The order impugned in the writ petition was without jurisdiction.

6. In this context, he relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Justine and Ors., reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Permanent Status Act is inapplicable regarding the claim of the employees in Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The remedy for aggrieved person is under Co-operative Societies Act itself. More-so, in the present case, the workmen are seasonal employees. The Writ Court has not considered the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of L. Justine and Ors., as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Further, the writ court has not adjudicated these issues raised by the appellant and thus, the writ appeal is to be allowed.

7. Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Labour Union would oppose by stating the members of the 2nd respondent/Labour Union are engaged as Khalasis and their services are utilised for loading and un-loading of food products and other essential commodities.

8. Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, would mainly contend that the regular employees are not engaged for performing loading and un-loading job and only the Khalasis are serving as load men in the Appellant/Society. When there are permanent nature of job is available, the services of the petitioners are to be absorbed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. No action has been taken by the Management to absorb the Khalasis as permanent employees and they are continuing only as daily wage employees. Therefore, actions are to be initiated to fix cadre strength for the permanent absorption of these Khalasis in the appellant/management. In this context, he would rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Nihal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 2013 (5) LLN 109 (SC). The relevant portions are extracted below :

"20. No doubt that the powers under