Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board Maintenance Division – Appellant
Versus
Labour Inspector under The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen Act) – Respondent
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 assis
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.
Workmen completing 480 days of service are entitled to permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Act, regardless of subsequent classification as contract labourers.
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming an employer-employee relationship, and regularisation and permanent absorption can only be granted in accordanc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions required for the regularization of workmen, as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 and the standing orders....
The Conferment of Permanent Status Act did not apply to the employees of the Board, and the Labour Court erred in granting retrospective regularisation without adjudication of disputed issues.
rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees dehors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee ....
The judgment emphasizes the statutory rights of industrial workers and the prohibition of unfair labour practices under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
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
