IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA and WMP.No.40989 of 2025 NIFCO Workers Committee Rep. by its President P. Krishnan, New No.50, Old No.109, Mannoor Village, Valarpuram Coast, Sriperumbudur Taluka, Kanchepuram District-605 105 Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Chief Secretary, Labour Welfare and Skill Development A2 Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Management NIFCO South India Manufacturing Private Ltd., New No.50, Old No.109, Mannoor Village, Valarpuram Coast, Sriperumbudur Taluka, Kanchepuram District 602 105.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER to call for the records of the respondent in the Impugned G.O. (D) No.112 dated 28.02.2025 of Labour Welfare and Skill Development (A2) Department and quash the same and direct the respondent to refer the Industrial Dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kumaraswamy For Respondent(s): Mrs. M. Jayanthy, AGP, for R1

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned G.O.(D).No.112, dated 28.02.2025 of Labour Welfare and Skill Development (A2) Department and direct the respondent to refer the Industrial Dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court.

2. The petitioner is a Workers Committee in the second respondent Company. While so, the petitioner sent a letter to the Conciliation Officer on 01.02.2023, requesting permanent status for five workers. Before the Labour Conciliation Officer, the petitioner claimed that since the five workmen were deemed to be permanent employees as per the model standing order of the 2nd respondent/Company, they were entitled to pay on par with the other permanent workmen. The Management filed a counter on 14.05.2024 stating that the five workmen were not technicians and that they belonged to the Supervisory category. The petitioner on the other hand contended before the Conciliation Officer that the workmen were engaged in direct production and hence, they did not belong to supervisory category. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government on 02.09.2014 and thereafter, the Government issued the impugned G.O., rejecting the reference on three grounds, namely, Workmen can seek relief i) under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act, or ii) under the Tamil Nadu (Industrial Establishment Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, or iii) raise an Industrial Dispute and get the rights adjudicated upon before the Labour Court. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned Government Order, filed the above Writ Petition.

3. Mrs.M.Jayanthy, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Though notice is served on the second respondent, there is no representation for the second respondent. With the consent of both counsels, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent failed to note the well settled legal principle that reference is the rule and the refusal an exception. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of the Secretary vs. Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam in W.A.No.1516 of 2025, dated 12.06.2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent failed to note that even the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments [Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen] Act, 1981, and therefore, denial of reference on the ground that the petitioner ought to approach the authority under the 1981 Act, is unsustainable.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.A perusal of the impugned G.O. discloses that the reference was denied on 3 grounds, viz., i) the workmen ought to approach the authority under 1981 Act for regularisation of their services, ii) the workmen can approach the Labour Court or the Government under Section 33 of the