ORDER

The writ petitions on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated

17.05.2016 passed by the Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health under the Provision of Conferment of Permanent Status Act.

2.The petitioner is Brakes India Private Limited. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Grey Iron Castings for Automobile Brake Assembly. The petitioner has a registered itself as a principal employer under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The petitioner has engaged contractors who have obtained license under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. These contractors supply labourers to the petitioner.

3.The 1st respondent issued summons as an authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The petitioner Company filed its preliminary objection on

15.03.2016 and an additional preliminary objection on 24.03.2016 & 07.04.206 respectively, contending that the respondents workmen were never in the role of employment of the petitioner Company and they were employees of the licensed contractors and therefore, the petition under the Provision of Conferment of Permanent Status Act is not maintainable. The respondents workmen raised industrial disputes alleging non-employment and that Failure Reports have been received. The petitioner Company prayed that the preliminary objection regarding their maintainability of the petition under the Provision of Conferment of Permanent Status Act is to be decided.

4.The 1st respondent was not inclined to take the maintainability as a preliminary issue and thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13552 to 13554 of 2016 for a direction. This Court passed an order on 12.04.2016, directing the 1st respondent to decide the preliminary issue as first among the other issues. Despite the directions issued, the 1st respondent has not decided the preliminary issue as raised by the petitioner Company, but decided the issue along with other issues and passed final orders on 17.05.2016. In other words, the 1st respondent has not decided the preliminary issue on merits. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Company contended that the final order was passed by the 1st respondent without any further notice to the petitioner with reference to the preliminary objection petition filed by them.

Thus, the order is perverse and is to be set aside.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Company contended that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the issues in the absence of any adjudication and crystallization of the rights of the workmen in the manner known to law. It is not as if the 1st respondent Company can entertain a petition filed by the workmen and order for permanent status without elaborate adjudication regarding the rights conferred on them. In the present case, the petitioner Company has raised a preliminary objection stating that the petition itself is not maintainable as the respondent workmen were not directly engaged by the petitioner Company. The petitioner have contended that these workmen were engaged by the licensed contractors with whom the petitioner Company executed contract for providing labourers for execution of certain works. Therefore, it was the contention of the petitioner that the respondent workmen are not directly engaged by the petitioner Company for the purpose of entertaining an application under the Provision of Conferment of Permanent Status Act.

6.The learned Senior Counsel to substantiate the principles relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions in the case of The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle vs. Inspector of Labour and another reported in 2022(2) LLN 750. The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder:

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, now Tamil Nadu Generat