IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A. No. 2412 of 2025

and C.M.P.No.18441 of 2025

1. The Management

Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd, Regional

office, Bye Pass Road,

Venkikal -606 604, Thiruvannamalai-4

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Inspector of Labour

Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Act 1981, (Tamil Nadu

Act 46 of 1981), Thiruvannamalai

2.A.R.Balaji

C/o.Arasu Pokuvarathu Kazhaga

Uuliyur Sangam, 187, Gangai amman

Kovil St, Thenimalai, Thiruvannamalai

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the

order dated 08.12.2022 in W.P. No. 29798 of 2014.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Aswin

For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Kumaravel

Additional Government Pleader for R1

Mr. V.Ajay Khose for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2022 in W.P. No. 29798 of 2014.

2. The facts before the Writ Court are as follows:-

The second respondent herein was appointed as a daily wage employee on 10.03.2008, after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. When he had sought conferment of permanent status under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the first respondent authority had taken into account the salary slips paid to the workman and had arrived at the conclusion that he had completed 480 days within the preceding 24 calender months, through its order dated

05.02.2014.

2.1. When the Management had challenged the order of the authority before the Writ Court in W.P.No.29798 of 2014, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 08.12.2022, by rejecting the claim of the Management that the terms of a Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot override the provisions of a statute, for which purpose reliance was placed on the decision in Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Vs. Labour Inspector, Virudhunagar and another reported in

2019 (4) LLN 790 (DB) (Mad.)

2.2. This order of dismissal is assailed in the present Writ Appeal.

3. Mr. M. Aswin, learned counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation would place reliance on G.O.(D).No.41, Transport (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007 and would submit that in view of the additional requirement of drivers and conductors, the 2^nd respondent herein, like the other staff members, was recruited on a reserve basis and absorbed as per the norms fixed in G.O.(D).No.41. Since the absorption of the 2^nd respondent is governed by G.O.(D).No.41, the authority ought not to have conferred the permanent status.

3.1. As an alternate submission, it is his case that the 2^nd respondent herein was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a punishment was also imposed in the year 2011 and therefore, the punishment of postponement of permanency by three years, ought to have been taken into account, while calculating 480 days for granting permanent status.

4. Per contra, Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that when Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, provides for grant of permanent status to persons, who have completed 480 days in 24 calendar months, neither G.O.(D).No.41, Transport (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007, nor the terms of Settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, could override the statutory provisions. With regard to the punishment, his submissions are two fold. Firstly, he would submit that the punishment was in the year 2011 and the workman had already completed the period of 480 days and therefore, the punishment has no consequence. Secondly, he would submit that the postponement of conferment of permanent status by a period of five years, is not a punishment prescribed under the regulations and as such, this punishm