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.

ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen Act directing conferment of permanent status to the respondents, who were alleged to be employed as contract labourers, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

2. For brevity, the petitioner would be referred to as the Board and the respondents would be referred to as workmen.

3. It is the case of the Board that for the purpose of maintenance of the water supply and sewerage schemes, yearly budget is prepared and since the Board is not equipped with the requisite number of substantive staff members, for the purpose of maintenance, based on the Government Orders, the maintenance work is outsourced to registered contractors on the basis of least quoted tenders every year. The main work of the labourers, who are engaged through the registered contractors is to pump up the water to the overhead tanks and the water that is stored in the tanks is pumped to the villagers. It is the further case of the Board that for the purpose of carrying out the said activity, the contractors were required to engage personnel like electrician and maintenance assistant for which the Board had prescribed the requisite qualifications. Though the workmen were engaged only through contractors and payment was made only to the contractors and there was no relationship between the workmen and the Board, however, the workmen filed the present petitions before the authority for grant of permanent status to workmen claiming employment under the Board by conferring permanent status on the said workmen by contending that the workmen had put in 480 days of continuous service in two calendar years.

4. It is the specific case of the Board that the workmen were engaged by the Board and that there is no relationship between the Board and the workmen and that no monthly salary is being paid by the Board to the workmen, but is paid only to the contractors and that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the workmen and the Board and that no attendance register was maintained by the Board in respect of the aforesaid workmen and, therefore, it was contended that their claim for permanent status cannot be favourably considered.

5. The workmen, on the other hand, contended that all along they were engaged through contractors by the Board and irrespective of the change in contractor every year, the workmen continued to be employed by the Board under the changed contractor. It was further submitted by the workmen that log book for their attendance was maintained in which the workmen affixed their signature, which was countersigned by the officials of the Board and that the workmen have been in continuous employment of more than 480 days in two continuous calendar years and it was further contended that they were issued with identity cards by the Board and the case of the Board that every year the change of contractor result in change of workmen has not been established and it was further submitted that even prior to they being engaged through the contractors and issued with identity cards, the workmen were engaged by the Board and the continuous employment of the workmen is not vouched alone by the entries in the log book, but the President of the Panchayat has also given certificate to each workmen certifying them to be in continuous employment of the Board under various contractors and, therefore, as per the provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status on Workmen Act, the workmen having put in 480 days of service in a period of two years are entitled for conferment of permanent status in the Board.

6. Before the authority, to establish their case, while the workmen marked Exs.W-1 to W-15, the Board marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. However, no witness was examined either on behalf of the workmen or by the Board. The authority, based on the oral and documentary evidence held that the workmen herein have been in employment for a c