COMMON ORDER

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly made a submission that the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.4061 of 2013 etc., batch, dated 07.03.2022, allowed the writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board setting aside the orders passed by the Labour Inspector. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“21. We have considered the submission aforesaid and for appreciation of the arguments we have perused the order passed by the Labour Inspector and the provisions of the Act of 1981. The Act of 1981 was brought to extend certain benefits to the employees who work for a continuous period of 480 days in 24 calendar months and for that purpose, the employer has to maintain records. The power has been conferred on the Labour Inspector to issue directions for maintenance of record and to grant permanency. In view of the above, we find that the Labour Inspector is empowered to issue order to grant permanency to the employee. However, it cannot be after addressing the complicated issue on facts and law. Whenever a serious dispute on facts and law is raised, the adjudication thereupon is permissible only by the Industrial Adjudicator, i.e., the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. The reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and others, supra, would be relevant for the aforesaid and paragraphs 125 and 126 are quoted hereunder to show that the issues of the nature referred to above can be determined only by the "industrial adjudicator". Referring to the word "industrial adjudicator", it was defined to be an Industrial tribunal or Labour Court. Paragraphs 125 and 126 are reproduced hereunder:

"125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus:

(1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression “appropriate Government” as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government;

(b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company;

or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government.

(2)(a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government:

(1) after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and (2) having regard to (i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question, and (ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10;

(b) Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on 9-12-1976 does not satisfy the afor