IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A.Nos. 3397 and 3416 of 2025

and C.M.P.Nos.27706 and 27925 of 2025

The Management

Metropolitan Transport Corporation

(Chennai) Ltd.

No.1, Anna Salai

Appellant(s) in both WAs

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Labour

Kancheepuram

2.R.Parani Kumar

Driver -DU3464

Respondents in WA.3397/2025

1. The Inspector of Labour

Kancheepuram

2.N.Murugesan Respondents in Conductor -CU 3045 WA.3416/2025

COMMON PRAYER

The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the

order dated 27.01.2020 made in W.P.Nos.29149 and 29150 of 2017.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.Vinoth Raj

in both W.As

For Respondent(s) Mr.K.Suresh in both W.As Government Advocate - R1 Mr. V.Ajay Khose for R2 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.

The above Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order dated

27.01.2020 made in W.P.Nos.29149 and 29150 of 2017.

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

The 2^nd respondents in the above Writ Appeals were appointed as a daily wage employees on 17.02.2011 and 26.03.2011 respectively, after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. When they had sought conferment of permanent status under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the 1^st respondent authority had taken into account the salary slips paid to the workmen and had arrived at the conclusion that they had completed 480 days within the preceding

24 calender months, through its order dated 15.12.2014.

2.1. When the Management had challenged the orders of the authority before the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.29149 and 29150 of 2017, the Writ Petitions came to be dismissed on 27.01.2020, 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. These orders of dismissal are assailed in the above Writ Appeals.

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 respondents in the above Writ Appeals, like the other staff members, were 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 respondents in the above Writ Appeals were subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a punishments were also imposed and therefore, the punishment of postponement of permanency, 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 respondents in the above Writ Appeals 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 when the punishment was imposed, the workmen 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, is not a punishment prescribed under